Saturday Soapbox: Why Everyone Is Amazing

Devs and gamers are united, and there can be only one winner: everyone!

These are angry times. The interconnected world is plaiting the lunatic fringes into a sort of consistently annoying haircut (a skinhead, in this case), Argentina is hacked off because the United Kingdom has sent a piddly little nuclear destroyer to paddle around the Falklands, nobody seems to have any money but do enjoy that 1.5 per cent pay rise that doesn't come close to inflation, and - perhaps most importantly - the fine art of dubstep is being sullied by its unwelcome proliferation across supermarket aisles and game trailers.

It was in this spirit of apocalypse that Marsh Davies took to our weekly nutter-shouting-in-a-park Soapbox slot to argue that developers have the right to stay silent about their future plans. In the process, he annoyed an awful lot of you who didn't realise that his tone wasn't entirely serious, despite labelling the Facebook Like button an example of "ego-frotting evil". Oops!

But, in the midst of the debate, one of Marsh's central points went unnoticed: that there are some very healthy, legitimate reasons for gamers to feel entitled. Many games are evolving into a collaborative experience created by programmers and players, and while this can occasionally cause problems for both parties, we don't do enough to celebrate a gaming culture that is increasingly creative and participatory. As others have rightly argued, there is another way to look at the evidence of 12,000 people playing Half-Life 2 together in solidarity: "This is the generation where more people are more supportive of more things and they're more supportive in the most wonderful of ways."

"As others have rightly argued, there is another way to look at the evidence of 12,000 people playing Half-Life 2 together in solidarity: 'This is the generation where more people are more supportive of more things and they're more supportive in the most wonderful of ways.'"

(Oh, and if it makes anyone feel better, even Valve isn't usually this secretive and obtuse in the face of pronounced public opposition to something it's doing, so I'm taking its silence as confirmation that we'll see a Half-Life 3 announcement this year. Tell me I'm wrong, Gabe!)

12,000 people playing a seven-year-old game together on the same day in the forlorn hope it would draw the attention of their idols is one of a range of really good news stories about the games industry that probably doesn't always penetrate past the doom and gloom of stories like THQ sacking loads of staff or Sony closing a game studio weeks before its last release even hits the shelves.

There's actually a lot of good going on. The Humble Bundles raise millions for charity and support creative people who want to exist outside the traditional games industry structure; Tim Schafer gets to make a new adventure game (on a golden yacht at this rate); and while the UK Top 40 may make for grim reading now and then (especially if you get sent the private copyrighted sales data that goes with it), there is great prosperity among those who strive to innovate outside it. Did you know that Riot Games, the maker of League of Legends, is absolutely swimming in money? I didn't until recently. Good news though!

There are a few people sucking teeth, of course. THQ isn't doing very well - we all appreciated core games boss Danny Bilson's noble goal of empowering creative people to make the best-possible games, but the quality hasn't been there frequently enough to pay the bills - and even safe-sounding giants like Square Enix posted big losses in FY 2011. Meanwhile, Ubisoft seems to have lost some of the creative zeal that made every one of its mid-2000s games into an exciting, unknown quantity, resorting to annual iteration and spamming console launches, posting losses in the process.

Meanwhile, former Microsoft "XNA" man Chris Satchell's bold vision of an Xbox Live Marketplace dominated by a peer-reviewed community of high-quality indie developers has been thoroughly kicked to the kerb - as the company tries to get its ducks in order around a future entertainment vision that sees operating systems converging on smartphone, desktop, tablet and games console, and shoving high-margin premium video streams and downloadable content down your broadband pipe instead.

"The goldrush around the iTunes App Store will slow down and shake out quite a few losers, but this is nothing to fear. The best will survive."

But that's OK too, because people adapt. Change is healthy. As Tim Schafer himself told our friends at Hookshot Inc this week, "The indie community is now moving elsewhere. We're figuring out how to fund and distribute games ourselves, and we're getting more control over them. Those systems, as great as they are, they're still closed. You have to jump through a lot of hoops, even for important stuff like patching and supporting your game... I mean, it costs $40,000 to put up a patch - we can't afford that! Open systems like Steam, that allow us to set our own prices, that's where it's at, and doing it completely alone like Minecraft. That's where people are going." The goldrush around the iTunes App Store will slow down and shake out quite a few losers, but this is nothing to fear. The best will survive.

'The best will survive.' A few years ago you could have called me a hopeless optimist for saying that, but these days I think I'm right. Social media is replacing the search engine as a smart gamer's primary means of discovering good content, and social media is much better for sharing on the internet than search engines because it innately favours quality. People mostly share things that excite or fascinate them, partly because they want their friends and acquaintances to be excited and fascinated too, but mostly because they want to bask in the reflected glory of being the guy or girl who found that amazing new thing on the internet.

This sort of thing is going to make everything better, not just gaming, and it certainly makes a lot more sense than hoping Microsoft will stick a massive ad for your indie game on the Xbox dashboard when it can charge someone 40 grand for use of that space instead. Now you can just make what you do high quality instead, and - by notifying the best curators - you'll get the word out. It even works for websites. Removed from that nonsense and enshrined in the goodwill of Notch's half a million Twitter followers, I wouldn't be surprised if Tim Schafer's adventure game is a massive hit. As long as it's good, people will now have the means to notice.

Still these are angry times. It's hard not to find something in the news to cast a long shadow over your cornflakes every morning. Yet still gamers do amazing things to support amazing game developers, and around them the apparatus of a socially connected world seems hard-wired to start rewarding that sense of mutual support and optimism on a much grander scale. The good will out. The best will win.

Comments (35) Latest comment 3 months ago

Comments for this article are now closed, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • v.profane #1 3 months ago

    Marsh was being facetious was he? I'm afraid he doesn't have the writing skill or the name recognition to pull that off.
  • the-stax #2 3 months ago

    Good article!

    You're absolutely right that gamers should be optimistic. I'd never thought about Social Media in the way you talk about, but its a good point.
  • CaptainQuint #3 3 months ago

    Post deleted at 08:57:34 18-02-2012
  • linksdad #4 3 months ago

    Popularity has never been an indicator of quality. It filters out the duds to a certain extent, but look at the charts (music, film, book, whatever) and then tell me that the top ten are always the best.
    This may change somewhat with social media, there wont be a top ten per se, but a personalised one based on peer recommendation.

    Anyway, interested times indeed.
  • pualhorse #5 3 months ago

    I'll tell all 14 of my twitter followers about Bastion and it'll save the games industry. Great.;-)
  • Lexx87 #6 3 months ago

    I liked that, some nice positive well thought out reading right there.
  • Ezzekhiel #7 3 months ago

    And the carebears lived happily ever after...
  • Slamhound #8 3 months ago

    @pualhorse Making 14 people discover Bastion is a worthwhile goal. Especially if each of those tell another 14 people...
    Edited by Slamhound at 18/02/12 @ 10:07
  • butler` #9 3 months ago

    Since when were search engines about sharing?

    They're about answering questions.
  • Architect_z #10 3 months ago

    United!!! United!!!
    (fyi I hate football, ice hockey is my sport)
  • erp #11 3 months ago

    I enjoyed that, thanks Tom.
  • DrStrangelove #12 3 months ago

    Social media is replacing the search engine as a smart gamer's primary means of discovering good content, and social media is much better for sharing on the internet than search engines because it innately favours quality.
    Erm, I don't remember Google harassing me with thousands of invitations to shite games, or plastering my browser window with random internet funpics.
  • DrStrangelove #13 3 months ago

    Anyway, big hugs everyone!
  • DyneVyse #14 3 months ago

    "he annoyed an awful lot of you who didn't realise that his tone wasn't entirely serious"

    does any one view him as "wasn't entirely serious" in that post?
  • arcam #15 3 months ago

    Ah, that's better.
  • digitalash #16 3 months ago

    Oops! Silly old us! His sense of irony was so subtle it was almost undetectable to us silly-billy plebs. Of course, we all read it as scathing criticism, straining to be funny, but actually the joke was on us! LOL!
  • rayscoota #17 3 months ago

    Damage-Limitation? EG?
  • disappointed #18 3 months ago

    Companies are already finding ways to buy Likes and retweets. Social media does not guarantee that there will always be a pathway to fame for quality products. It converts popularity into promotion which can have the opposite effect of reinforcing the position of established brands. Indies will always need the good will and active support of the community if they are to fight for their fair share of the market. Maybe smaller organisations are inherently better at working with the community. They'll have to be. If the corporate giants get the hang of social media, they'll be even stronger than they were before.
  • Kami #19 3 months ago

    Oh dear, can I spoil the happy huggy mood? Why yes, yes I can. Please don't hit me.

    The relationship between developers and gamers is fundamentally skewed. Games are becoming ever more expensive to make, produce and maintain - this we know. And yet, the actual cost value of games has remained at a relative constant for years. But as games become more expensive, and the value of money slips a bit, developers and publishers need to sell vastly more in volume than can be reasonably expected - a few years ago, 750,000 games in a few months would have been seen as a runaway success. For some now, that's not enough to even break even.

    Which for me leads us to a bit of an impasse - yes, there is some light in the Kickstarter approach to funding, but again, there are fundamental questions there to answer and mistakes need to be made so we can learn from them. No, the best often don't survive - quality is not a measure of success. Critics and gamers like to believe their voices can change the world - reality check time, they don't. The measure of success in this industry (like any other) is money. Cold, hard and very real.

    We blame the industry a lot for a lot of different things, but for me it comes down to the RRP of games, which has remained fairly constant for quite a few years now. In a lot of cases, games are being aggressively downpriced. Games are cheap. They just are. I was paying £30-£40 ten years ago (edit; I was paying that in the PS1 era 1996 through into the PS2 era as well, so sixteen years I'd say) for a new game. I'm paying that now. Games haven't risen with inflation. They've remained pretty static. The development costs of games, however... well, they haven't remained static.

    That's the problem so many miss. As budgets have increased, the cost of a game hasn't. And we're asking many studios, developers and publishers to make a significant amount more on a project when we're only happy to pay the bare minimum available to us. That's why Kickstarter is impressive, but it can't be a solution. Because it isn't solving an actual problem - it's arguably going to start new ones. Changing how games are funded is great in theory - but it's early days. Who knows what problems will come forward?

    Amazing as we are, there's so many conflicting issues and juxtaposed ideals and rocky relationships to just say "Everyone is amazing!". Yes. Like you are unique - just like everyone else. It means nothing where it counts. We whoop and cheer and feel better about ourselves but what about those downsizing for the iOS market? Losing their jobs? Facing bankruptcy?

    It isn't just the industry that needs to change. We've been getting the sweetest deal for so long as gamers. We've arguably even abused it.

    Are we willing to let that go to solve problems in the industry? I wonder.
    Edited by Kami at 18/02/12 @ 16:36
  • doyourealize #20 3 months ago

    A lot of the anger has to do with living in culture that values sound bites more than complete information. Many responders to this article are clinging to the one line that juxtaposes their view of a previous article, without responding to the main idea of this article. Many responders to the previous article seem to have read only a little more than the title before posting angry comments (my apologies if you read the whole thing an still had the same troubles). It's the habit of lazy minds (and everyone's mind is naturally lazy) to listen only to immediate intuition rather than wait a minute to find out the facts.

    Maybe Valve's got a good reason for staying hush-hush. Maybe Davies meant to be a little ironic (I didn't read it that way, but I did get the point that sometimes, developers do owe gamers). And maybe developers do care about gamers...it's just they have a business to run, too.
  • doyourealize #21 3 months ago

    @Kami Agreed. But imagine the outcry if games suddenly raised in price from $60 to $80 or more (sorry, I'm in the US). They'd sell less copies, so would they sell enough to make up the difference? I don't think anyone knows the solution.

    On a side note, have you ever heard Louis CK's "everything is amazing,and nobody's happy"? Pretty spot on.
  • arcam #22 3 months ago

    @Kami Those "sweetest deals" are necessary if developers want the huge volume of sales that you talk about in your post.

    Yes they could increase the RRP and most of us at EG will still buy as many games, but they will lose far more of the less obsessive fans, and that will wipe out the savings made by spending less on production and promotion.

    Most of the increase in developers' costs is not unavoidable, it has been a conscious decision made by publishers who feel that the extra cash spent will be more than made up for by the extra sales at the end, and quite often they're right. Risks for games-makers have increased, but the rewards have increased along with it.
  • threemoh #23 3 months ago

    @linksdad >[Popularity] filters out the duds to a certain extent, but look at the charts (music, film, book, whatever) and then tell me that the top ten are always the best.

    I'd say the top ten albums aren't too bad. Overwhelmingly not to my taste, I grant you, but it's all largely "credible"- or whatever other bullshit argument you want to use to rationalise popular music not being aimed exclusively at you personally.

    Flippancy aside, the charts, certainly as you're referring to them, don't measure absolute popularity, but one kind of popularity (eg direct sales of singles, but not album sales/radio airplay/on demand/use as background music in a TV show/MP3 player usage) across a certain period of time (a week).

    It's not reasonable to go "Nobody has any taste and music is teh deadzorz" just because Justin Beiber or whoever got the number one single this week instead of Elvis (or whoever), when, in mid-February 2011 most people who are going to buy Elvis' music probably already have done, which isn't true for Justin, and considering how long ago it's been since Elvis actually released anything (what with him being dead, and that) anyone that hasn't is probably going to buy in album or box set form, which would most likely go in its own chart.

    Even if they didn't, Elvis' music will probably have already sold more copies to date than Bieber could ever hope for.

    tl;dr: Grow up.
    Edited by threemoh at 18/02/12 @ 17:56
  • kimchibaka #24 3 months ago

    If Marsh Davies wasn't serious then he and the editor need to take a long hard look at why that in no way came across. Or as readers are we supposed to be clairvoyant?

    I think the pitiful number of comments following this article tells a tale - people haven't bothered with this week's piece because last week's read like a furious two-fingers up to almost all of your readership.
    Edited by kimchibaka at 18/02/12 @ 18:11
  • threemoh #25 3 months ago

    @Kami >That's the problem so many miss. As budgets have increased, the cost of a game hasn't.

    On the other hand, the ways you can make money from a game has.

    If you release a (boxed) game on 360 today, then in less than a year, there's a good chance it'll be on Games On Demand- it you release on Vita it'll be on the equivalent service day-and-date.

    This means that games which have missed their (increasingly short) window of time at retail can continue to bring in funds for years- something that wasn't an option on xBox, PS2, GameCube or basically anything that came before.

    You can even skip the retail stage entirely if you want, and launch straight into the long-term business.

    The idea of paying a subscription to access a range of games as opposed to buying single titles individually used to be unheard of- nowadays there's Metaboli (which has been going for ten years!) and OnLive's PlayPack, both of which will be drip-feeding money towards developers and publishers.

    You can release your game episodically- spending the same amount of money overall over the same amount of time to make the same amount of game, but doing it in four or five smaller chunks, which is slightly less risky.

    There's DLC, too- anything from adding extra content to a retail game (eg CoD map packs) through free-to-play buffs (Farmville) to the purely superficial (Different-coloured hats in Every Korean MMO: Ever)

    However, considering the way many internet commenters seem to have responded to such developments so far, I think the answer to the question "Are we willing to let that go to solve problems in the industry?" is "No."
  • Arsecake_Baker #26 3 months ago

    A lot of posts have already beat me to it, but yes this is an obvious damage-limitation article.

    The prize prat who wrote the offending piece of garbage never came across as sarcastic or facetious, it was an attack on the fans, a mis-informed, badly written, opinionated piece of tosh...maybe a more thorough interviewing technique next time you employ a "games journalist" EG.
  • Madder-Max #27 3 months ago

    Great. another Socal media crowbar-article.

    "Social media is replacing the search engine as a smart gamer's primary means of discovering good content"

    No it fucking isn't
  • Jonny5Alive7 #28 3 months ago

    " Social media is replacing the search engine as a smart gamer's primary means of discovering good content"

    No it isn't, its the home of Farmville et al. Discovering good content is still the case of reading it on sites such as this.
  • HeNiCiDe1988 #29 3 months ago

    lol cant believe EG complained about the comments to do with that crap article. Just take it on the chin EG rather then being nit picky or defensive.

    Interesting read, and its true that there isnt complete equality with gamers and developers but there is certainly room to breathe and both to operate in. Also they do need us to buy the games via whatever means. But it is true I suppose that the game's prices havent gone up which does hinder the more costly making of a game. I think 2 million or 1 million of a game needs to be sold now to be a success.

    But I do still believe our voices can be heard and changes do occur in lots of games from feedback from fans and yes cash determines success but it is related to what we spend our cash on and thus we do have the power to dictate whats a success and what isnt.

    Many great games havnt been a success and some havnt, but I think reviews really do have an impact on what people buy so if the game isnt too indie style (even though this is a shame because really far out games can be great) quality does effect what sells. And quality determines what we buy-people can complain about MW3 but gameplay wise it is very addictiv and fun for lots of people thus it sells. BF3 is great game in all aspects and thus people buy it.


    I do think we do have a control to an extent when it comes to released stuff, we have no control on what publishers deem worth it and what not worth it, and because they do what they want doesnt mean its totally pointless for us to talk.

    Plus developers may complain about people complaining constantly to them and be like "people have no idea how hard it is to do that" one thing artists hate is being told what to do its partly that (yes its annoying) but is still valid to listen too.
  • ApatheticRhino #30 3 months ago

    @Jonny5Alive7
    Depends on your friends list. If you can find a circle of like minded and savvy folk then it would be the first place to go!
  • Harmonica #31 3 months ago

    @Kami Your argument would hold more weight if games hadn't been getting shorter and shorter in the same time period. There is less meat in 90% of games that are released these days. Maybe there's more glitz and glamour, but there's also less QA and way more launch issues (pretty much every title launched last year had major issues on day 1 which you would not have seen in a shipped title of 10 years ago).

    The bleeding heart thing for developers is a bit of a joke. These are the same group of people who want two bites at the same cherry (packed-in one use codes for online features) and want to see the second hand market killed off as well. Nope, not buying it.

    Anyway, I'm massively upbeat. Indie is king right now. People are cash strapped and feeling the pinch but we'll still chuck a tenner in a pot if we believe in the team making a game. There's a massive incentive towards artistry and innovation. The mainstream studios and publishers will just HAVE to cotton on to the success of indie development and start pushing their projects in that direction. Or risk stagnation and dying out.

    So essentially back in 2000 pretty much everyone (in PC land anyway) was fearing the death of original quality independantly minded gaming, or PC gaming altogether. It still looked reasonably likely mid-way through this console generation that the mainstream was going to be so huge it would crush the other outlets. Luckily, we seem to have avoided that fate, and not only that but indie is no longer the niche it once was. It may not have anywhere near the ad spend of big budget gaming but it doesn't need to, because word of mouth is far more powerful in this era. Future is rosy.

    edit: a few posts above decrying social media. Yeah, facebook and associated games are a scurge but you'd have to be blind not to see how something as ludicrous as the 'arrow in the knee' meme for Skyrim, popularised inexplicably over Twitter and Facebook (et al), reached out to non-gamers who started asking about the game. I lost count of the number of people who went from parroting that phrase to asking 'so what's this Skyrim game all about?'. The vast success of Minecraft in the indie sphere was due entirely to people posting about the game and knowledge of it spreading at an exponential rate across all of those new platforms.
    Edited by Harmonica at 19/02/12 @ 02:55
  • -cerberus- #32 3 months ago

    "the fine art of dubstep". Cracked me up :)
  • Triggerhappytel #33 3 months ago

    I've just re-read that piece by Marsh, and I don't believe for one second that the whole article was intended to be tongue-in-cheek. This just smells like bullshit damage control.
  • TazerFan #34 3 months ago

    @kimchibaka

    LOL, no, it's just not a very interesting article.
  • CamberGreber #35 3 months ago

    "the cost of produceing games has gone up while the cost of the games has remained basicly the same"

    While that is true you fail to point out the fact that the number of potenial buyers and gamers out there has increased 10 fold since the mid 90s.

    There plenty of room for developers to make there money back.



    The real reason only the top AAA games suceed is because in this "information age" we live in we are all way over exsposed to constant stimulation.

    Whether is be internet, video games, Tv, Movies, etc..

    There are to many choices you cant exspect people to choose anything other than what they believe to be the best bang for there buck.