Evergreens
Jan. 20th, 2006 12:59 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
alexxkayA game designer I respect once said to me, "If I ever make another Game of the Year that sells only 50,000 copies, please just shoot me." People who have been in the industry for years are often very good at making games that other game afficionados (such as game journalists) love -- but not so good at making games that actually *sell*.
As game budgets increase, it is rare for a game to take up less than a year of production time; Two years or more are not uncommon. And most of these games stay on the shelves for less than 3 months. I, for one, am tired of seeing such a brief return on years of my effort. *Some* games stay on the shelves for six months, a year, or even longer. Sometimes six months can go by where the top 5 sellers *don't change*, just shuffle their order. In this essay, I'm going to try and identify commonalities among these "Evergreen" titles. It goes without saying that an Evergreen has to be fun -- but that clearly isn't sufficient, as many fun games either vanish without a trace, or get only a brief stay on a best seller list.
In looking at Evergreens over the last few years, I see lots of little patterns, but they can be divided up into two broad categories: Mainstream Appeal and Lengthy Games. All Evergreens I looked at had at least one of these in a big way.
Mainstream Appeal
In order to sell lots of copies, people need to "get" the game. Games that are in and about the "real world" have an obvious leg up. Sports games, The Sims (and most of Maxis' output), most Sid Meier games, various "Tycoon" games -- all are eminently "gettable".
Sales can get an extra leg up if the setting is one that hasn't been previously exploited in gaming (Deer Hunter, Roller Coaster Tycoon). This effect is mitigated somewhat by the inevitable horde of copycats -- but not as much as one might think. Being "first in" has clear advantages, that seem to last well into, and often comletely through, the "competitive period".
Another source of popular settings seems to be from other media, Star Wars being the canonical example. In actuality, however, few other media licenses have generated Evergreens, and even Star Wars only rarely manages this.
The other source of familiarity is a game franchse that was once "original IP", but has since become well established in the public mind. Examples include Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil. That's great if you *have* such a license; not so much if you're just hoping to establish one, but haven't yet succeeded.
It also helps sales if the setting is one you have a monopoly on. Any one can make space opera games, but only Lucasarts can make Star Wars games. Any one can make monster-collecting games, but Nintendo owns Pokemon. The license itself has enough appeal that it can help drive sales -- and it's an aspect that can't be competed with.
Lengthy Games
Of the Evergreen games I examined, vanishingly few of them had short gameplay. of the ones that did, *all* of them had extremely strong, popular licenses. Hypothesis: Given a certain minimum level of distribution and marketing awareness, the ongoing popularity of a game is more dependent on word-of-mouth than any other factor. People talk to their friends about the game that they're playing lately -- the longer they play any one game, the longer they talk about it, and the more friends of theirs will be inspired to pick it up themselves. (If you can show any counter-examples, I'd love to hear them! Part of the point of writing out theories like this is to find the holes in them...)
Over the last few years, there has been a general trend towards shorter games. This is driven primarily by the economics of increasing technology. As engines pump out more polygons, more artists are needed to create those polygons, pushing development budgets ever upwards. One way to cope with the ever-increasing expense of high-quality content has been to simply make *less* of it. Game journalists at first decried this trend, but have since become complacent about it. It si now common to see a line in a review say something like, "It's too bad the game is only eight hours long, but it was still really fun." That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a game reviewer to say -- but I don't think it's wise for *developers* to be so complacent about this issue.
Game Designers and game journalists both, as players, actually like short games. They are each professionally required to play many, many games, and rarely get to spend as much time as they like with the good ones. For an adult game designer wih a family, playing a game through to the end is a rare luxury -- one that a short game is more likely to provide. Since we know so much about the inner workings of games, we are likely to see through them and become bored fairly early on. In all these respects we are *very unlike* the consumers who actually buy Evergreen games. They have demonstrated that they prefer -- overwhelmingly -- games that can be enjoyed for months on end.
There are several common mechanisms for making games long-lived. Robust multiplayer options make it so that the game never plays the same way twice (sports, FPS, RTS). Some games have a lot of different ways to play, so that the player can enjoy trying out new strategies in a very unstructured manner, watching the emergent results of their actions (Civilization, The Sims). The game can include vast quantities of raw content, so that even a single "playthrough" takes weeks or months (Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft).
What's Missing?
There are two things that are noticeably absent or weak throughout the list of Evergreens, but which many game designers nonetheless focus on: Cutting Edge Graphics, and Complex Stories.
One might think that better graphics means better sales -- but this doesn't hold up to closer examination. Better graphics can make good screenshots, and look good on in-store demos -- but they don't promote the sort of lengthy gameplay that I argue is essential to creating Evergreens. Indeed, they actively work against that goal, by taking resources away from aspects of the project that increase play time. Moreover (at least on PC), extreme hardware requirements limit the audience to only hard-core gamers -- who aren't the people driving the Evergreen market. Awesome graphics may get great reviews and a great-selling debut, but it won't keep a game on the charts for months.
On the contrary, we see many Evergreens that demonstrate the exact opposite. Roller Coaster Tycoon was *years* behind the state of the art graphically at the time of release, but sold millions for years more. In the third installment, it modernized the graphics considerably -- and didn't stay on the charts as long. One of the canny decisions Blizzard made early on in World of Warcraft was to make the art design of their world highly stylized, almost cartoony. This lets them push very few polygons, relative to other games (even MMOs), and keep their hardware requirements low.
What about stories? Huge chunks of the Evergreen games have *no* story at all. Or if they do have a story, it's an emergent one, that exists more in the mind of the player than in anything programmed into the game (The Sims being the most obvious example). Where stories exist at *all* in Evergreens (such as GTA, Diablo, WoW), the stories are cliched, and only tangentially related to the gameplay. They're really just an excuse to "do the next mission", and usually a clumsy excuse at that.
There is, undeniably, a market for games with strong stories. It includes me and many of my friends and colleagues. But it is *not* an Evergreen market. As far as the mainstream is concerned, story is not what they play games for, and they vote with their wallets. A strong story-based game may be a critical darling, or even top the charts for a month or two -- but I can't recall such a game ever *staying* on top for more than that.
As game budgets increase, it is rare for a game to take up less than a year of production time; Two years or more are not uncommon. And most of these games stay on the shelves for less than 3 months. I, for one, am tired of seeing such a brief return on years of my effort. *Some* games stay on the shelves for six months, a year, or even longer. Sometimes six months can go by where the top 5 sellers *don't change*, just shuffle their order. In this essay, I'm going to try and identify commonalities among these "Evergreen" titles. It goes without saying that an Evergreen has to be fun -- but that clearly isn't sufficient, as many fun games either vanish without a trace, or get only a brief stay on a best seller list.
In looking at Evergreens over the last few years, I see lots of little patterns, but they can be divided up into two broad categories: Mainstream Appeal and Lengthy Games. All Evergreens I looked at had at least one of these in a big way.
Mainstream Appeal
In order to sell lots of copies, people need to "get" the game. Games that are in and about the "real world" have an obvious leg up. Sports games, The Sims (and most of Maxis' output), most Sid Meier games, various "Tycoon" games -- all are eminently "gettable".
Sales can get an extra leg up if the setting is one that hasn't been previously exploited in gaming (Deer Hunter, Roller Coaster Tycoon). This effect is mitigated somewhat by the inevitable horde of copycats -- but not as much as one might think. Being "first in" has clear advantages, that seem to last well into, and often comletely through, the "competitive period".
Another source of popular settings seems to be from other media, Star Wars being the canonical example. In actuality, however, few other media licenses have generated Evergreens, and even Star Wars only rarely manages this.
The other source of familiarity is a game franchse that was once "original IP", but has since become well established in the public mind. Examples include Pokemon, Grand Theft Auto, Resident Evil. That's great if you *have* such a license; not so much if you're just hoping to establish one, but haven't yet succeeded.
It also helps sales if the setting is one you have a monopoly on. Any one can make space opera games, but only Lucasarts can make Star Wars games. Any one can make monster-collecting games, but Nintendo owns Pokemon. The license itself has enough appeal that it can help drive sales -- and it's an aspect that can't be competed with.
Lengthy Games
Of the Evergreen games I examined, vanishingly few of them had short gameplay. of the ones that did, *all* of them had extremely strong, popular licenses. Hypothesis: Given a certain minimum level of distribution and marketing awareness, the ongoing popularity of a game is more dependent on word-of-mouth than any other factor. People talk to their friends about the game that they're playing lately -- the longer they play any one game, the longer they talk about it, and the more friends of theirs will be inspired to pick it up themselves. (If you can show any counter-examples, I'd love to hear them! Part of the point of writing out theories like this is to find the holes in them...)
Over the last few years, there has been a general trend towards shorter games. This is driven primarily by the economics of increasing technology. As engines pump out more polygons, more artists are needed to create those polygons, pushing development budgets ever upwards. One way to cope with the ever-increasing expense of high-quality content has been to simply make *less* of it. Game journalists at first decried this trend, but have since become complacent about it. It si now common to see a line in a review say something like, "It's too bad the game is only eight hours long, but it was still really fun." That is a perfectly reasonable thing for a game reviewer to say -- but I don't think it's wise for *developers* to be so complacent about this issue.
Game Designers and game journalists both, as players, actually like short games. They are each professionally required to play many, many games, and rarely get to spend as much time as they like with the good ones. For an adult game designer wih a family, playing a game through to the end is a rare luxury -- one that a short game is more likely to provide. Since we know so much about the inner workings of games, we are likely to see through them and become bored fairly early on. In all these respects we are *very unlike* the consumers who actually buy Evergreen games. They have demonstrated that they prefer -- overwhelmingly -- games that can be enjoyed for months on end.
There are several common mechanisms for making games long-lived. Robust multiplayer options make it so that the game never plays the same way twice (sports, FPS, RTS). Some games have a lot of different ways to play, so that the player can enjoy trying out new strategies in a very unstructured manner, watching the emergent results of their actions (Civilization, The Sims). The game can include vast quantities of raw content, so that even a single "playthrough" takes weeks or months (Grand Theft Auto, World of Warcraft).
What's Missing?
There are two things that are noticeably absent or weak throughout the list of Evergreens, but which many game designers nonetheless focus on: Cutting Edge Graphics, and Complex Stories.
One might think that better graphics means better sales -- but this doesn't hold up to closer examination. Better graphics can make good screenshots, and look good on in-store demos -- but they don't promote the sort of lengthy gameplay that I argue is essential to creating Evergreens. Indeed, they actively work against that goal, by taking resources away from aspects of the project that increase play time. Moreover (at least on PC), extreme hardware requirements limit the audience to only hard-core gamers -- who aren't the people driving the Evergreen market. Awesome graphics may get great reviews and a great-selling debut, but it won't keep a game on the charts for months.
On the contrary, we see many Evergreens that demonstrate the exact opposite. Roller Coaster Tycoon was *years* behind the state of the art graphically at the time of release, but sold millions for years more. In the third installment, it modernized the graphics considerably -- and didn't stay on the charts as long. One of the canny decisions Blizzard made early on in World of Warcraft was to make the art design of their world highly stylized, almost cartoony. This lets them push very few polygons, relative to other games (even MMOs), and keep their hardware requirements low.
What about stories? Huge chunks of the Evergreen games have *no* story at all. Or if they do have a story, it's an emergent one, that exists more in the mind of the player than in anything programmed into the game (The Sims being the most obvious example). Where stories exist at *all* in Evergreens (such as GTA, Diablo, WoW), the stories are cliched, and only tangentially related to the gameplay. They're really just an excuse to "do the next mission", and usually a clumsy excuse at that.
There is, undeniably, a market for games with strong stories. It includes me and many of my friends and colleagues. But it is *not* an Evergreen market. As far as the mainstream is concerned, story is not what they play games for, and they vote with their wallets. A strong story-based game may be a critical darling, or even top the charts for a month or two -- but I can't recall such a game ever *staying* on top for more than that.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 06:50 pm (UTC)Story-based games won't become evergreens -- but they can inspire loyalty through sequels. Has anyone tried the telenovela/soap opera approach to gaming? Where you pump out another story set in the same game universe and probably the same game engine, plus or minus a few tweaks, every three months? $20/game four times a year is better than $50/game once every two years.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 07:46 pm (UTC)Not yet successfully. There have been a few attempts, but most have not made it to production. Those that have, have had very poor distribution and marketing, and thus very limited sales.
Valve is certainly moving in that direction with Steam and the Half-Life franchise (and publishing SiN in episodes). Still far too early to tell if there will be any success this time.
I think that for the basic concept to work, we need to get to the point where "high production values" don't necessitate re-inventing the underlying technology so thoroughly and so often. Arguably, we may be at that point now, but we certainly weren't two years ago.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 08:00 pm (UTC)Now, there's a possibility. Get $bignameauthor to provide an outline, a bible and some character description, use a game engine that doesn't need this year's hot graphics card to run (so your market is essentially "everyone with a computer who is a fan of $bignameauthor", rather than "gamers with current rigs who like $bignameauthor") and go serial. End every chapter with a cliffhanger. Start every episode with a flashback in which you see something vital from the last episode from a different perspective, which may or may not alter its significance. Distribution through bookstores and Amazon rather than MediaPlay or whoever...
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 08:50 pm (UTC)The basic creative idea is feasible. I think the distribution suggestion, however, is exactly backwards. Retail stores are disincentivized to stock cheap, rapid turn-over items. Lots of work for relatively little profit. Stephen King discovered this with The Green Mile. On-line distribution is really the appropriate model. Which means that broadband penetration is an issue (or you need *very* small content drops, or streaming, or other clever tech).
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 09:07 pm (UTC)The problem with The Green Mile is that they turned a single $25 hardcover sale into 6 $4 chapbooks, driving up printing costs and transaction costs and making every transaction risky... and did it all in a single summer.
On-line distribution is perfectly feasible as one channel, but if you want to sell to every 15-35yo male with a PC in the US, you need to put the physical item in front of them somewhere in the mall. And if you're really successful, Walmart.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 09:37 pm (UTC)And then there was ET; that one was legendary! ;-)
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 10:05 pm (UTC)Episodes without broadband
Date: 2006-01-23 01:52 pm (UTC)Re: Episodes without broadband
Date: 2006-01-23 03:35 pm (UTC)Re: Episodes without broadband
Date: 2006-01-25 07:08 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 09:34 pm (UTC)Get the graphic overhead down low enough, and maybe you could produce it like a TV show: a new episode each week, with, say, 2 hours of gameplay. No individual game would be an Evergreen, but the series would keep people coming back for more.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-20 10:07 pm (UTC)That is indeed the key. I think we're close to there, technologically. Could still be a long time before we see a successful implementation in practice, but the model looks viable.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-21 04:22 am (UTC)This is a Bad Idea[TM]. Seriously, if you want a Big Name to pull someone to your piece of media, it needs to be a Big Name with a serious fan base within the market for said media. Yeah, Tom Clancy has a number of games with his name on them, but I'd be very surprised if there was any significant overlap between fans of the game and fans of his novels.
If you do a project like this, your Big Name for draw needs to be one that gamers know, unless you're prepared (capital-wise) to sink a lot of money into plowing ground that may or may not prove fertile. I can't imagine any company other than Square-Enix or Sid Meier actually wielding their name effectively in a project like this. And Sid Meier only if people remember the SMAC fiction, which I suspect most people don't.
The idea of distributing it through bookstores/Amazon is pretty damn hot though.
(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-21 08:40 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2006-01-21 04:18 pm (UTC)