Brad Wardell has just posted his latest gaming industry article at :
http://www.avault.com/developer/getarticle.asp?name=bwardell5

It highlights the fact that many games developers and games journalists really have no idea what their target market demographics are.

This caught my eye :

---

Quote:

But either the research is wrong (I suspect it's correct) or the game developers are out of their minds. Apparently, according to the research, not every game player is a 16 year old male with a 1.7Ghz Pentium IV and a GeForce 3 card. However, you wouldn't know that based on the hardware requirements of most of the titles released or on the reviews for them. I actually saw a review for a game in which the writer had a GeForce 3 this past Winter. Uh, hello? What mortals had a GeForce 3 in February of 2001?

And there lies the problem: We developers and our buddies in the gaming media are just not professionals (generally speaking) when it comes to making products. We want to be different than the other industries. We don't have release dates, we proudly say, "when it's ready." We regularly will favor technology over gameplay.

---

---

Quote:

Now, another shocking thing to learn is that most people actually prefer single player games. Surely that's wrong? What about all the multiplayer-only titles? Dare to put out a strategy game these days without a hefty multiplayer experience and you're in for a pretty painful review. How many times have you seen that? A really good game get a luke warm or negative review because it didn't have multiplayer built in. For me personally, multiplayer is a must. I generally won't buy a strategy game that doesn't have it, but I'm in the minority, I'm a "hardcore" gamer; I live to play online. But according to the report and just from anecdotal evidence, there is a growing backlash from gamers who simply want designers to start putting their energies into making a good single player product. Make decent computer players and make the game rich enough to keep them coming back for more. As opposed to what many recent titles have brought us -- single player experiences that are essentially tutorials for multiplayer.

It's easier to prove that multiplayer isn't that big of a deal than it is to prove how low end most people's hardware is because we can just go look at GameSpy or Microsoft's GameZone or Battle.net. Lots of people on there right? Yep, thousands. Note: Thousands, not millions. Counterstrike is pretty popular; how many people are playing at once? Several thousand, not hundreds of thousands. Games like EverQuest and Ultima Online have shown that you can make online only titles successful but they did their homework (or learned through bitter experience) that there is a pretty substantial online gaming community out there. One that is big enough to sustain these kinds of products but not big enough to sell a million copies (not yet anyway). But even their subscriber numbers aren't huge -- couple hundred thousand total and that's after years of availability.

---

I agree with a lot of things in this article, primarily the part about multiplayer... i still prefer single player over multi player... call me a recluse, but the mutliplayer "community" can be pretty dickish sometimes. im generalzing...

anyway, what i dont like about most games being released today is the demand that so and so game be multiplayer. whats more important in my mind are options and cusomizability. the ability to "mod" a game is much more important to me than to play it online against some assholes. fer instance, with NWN i expect to play it SOLO more than anything else... i did the same thing with diablo 2... imagine diablo 2 being modifiable... and i mean the ability to set up the dungeons monsters and whatnut... thats what more games should do, especially pc games since thats the strength of pc games over console...

etc

While I love multiplayer games -- primarily because I play them with buddies over a LAN, and don't rely on the multiplayer "community" online -- good single-player experiences are important, too. There's a lot more that has to go into single-player experiences, too. Not that it's easy to give a good multiplayer experience, but, typically, your biggest battle in multiplayer is trying to ensure fairness -- prevent rushing, eliminate cheating, etc. But, typcially, there is less of a focus on AI for multiplayer, and that's one of the hardest things to get right, it seems. But single seems to be much more time-consuming to develop -- campaigns (and lots of them), variety, AI...Lots of stuff that doesn't play the same role in multiplayer gaming.

Anyway, there's a point buried in there somewhere...You just have to sift through it some...

I'm pretty bummed that Neverwinter Nights seems to be focused mostly on the multiplayer aspect. Does that mean Baldur's Gate 3 (or whatever follows BG2) will be of interest only for the online gaming crowd? That would be a shame.

I hope that Pools of Radiance is a single-player game.

NWN will ship with a full single-player game, of what we're told will be a reasonable length for a RPG--something between Fallout and Baldur's Gate. The editor should result in lots of user-created adventures to download as well for solo gaming. At least that's the plan. Given that NWN's version of multiplayer is mostly focused on allowing small groups to form game sessions, I don't think you're looking at an EverQuest-like multiplayer focus. But yeah, the big draw of NWN is being able to hook up with several friends and a DM to play virtual D&D.

Pool of Radiance is a solo game mostly, if it ever arrives.

I was just over on NWN's home page, and they state approximately forty hours of single-player fun, out of the box. And, yeah, like Robert said, plenty of downloadable stuff as time goes on.

Their website has a lot of cool stuff over there. You should go check it out. Neverwinter Nights' homepage.

>This is so true given that Joe Gamer out there is probably running a Pentium II/III 200 - 500MHz and a pre-GeForce video card.

Source?

I'd be willing to bet that Joe Gamer has a better system than that. Joe Computer Owner, probably not, but most of them don't buy many games anyway.

I don't think the problem is system requirements. I think the problem is that games don't use those high system requirements to give an experience you couldn't get with something more modest. If you're going to go high-end, you need to have the production values to match it.

The system requirements for The Sims are pretty steep--the box says 233 and 32MB, but it runs like total shit on anything less than a 500 with 64MB (and this for a reasonably aged game). How many people do you think actually look at that little white requirements box on the bottom flap? I've never once seen someone do that in the software store.

Black & White is selling pretty darn well, too, and it's not very friendly to those 300 Mhz systems.

That article seems mostly right about the developer financial situation, though. Too many developers, especially new ones, take less up-front money and think they're going to get rich on the back-end. But there never is any.

Case in point: Monolith. They've learned a lot from some of their past mistakes--mistakes they were lucky to even survive. They're never going to see a dime from NOLF, but apparently it was profitable for them because they got it all from the publisher during development and kept their costs below what they were paid. At least, that's what I've heard.

That seems to be the way to do it with titles that aren't guaranteed hits - make a business deal where you don't get squat on the back end, but don't NEED it. If your game is a million seller and you lose out, fine, make a deal with lots of back-end for the sequel.

On a completely different note: I'd love to see Brad Wardell do one of his infamous articles on the gaming industry that actually reads like he did more research than talk to four of his developer buddies. Where are the quotes from known developers and publishers?

"Blizzard made Starcraft 2D, took their lumps from reviewers and hardcore gamers, and made a great product that sold a ton of copies."

What?! Took their lumps? Starcraft was FABULOUSLY well-recieved!

Jason, I distinctly remember multiple reviews knocking Starcraft for the graphics. They went on to talk about how the game was fun, but the complaints were there.

This isn't a really derogatory example, but:

"Blizzard's use of what could be debatably termed a "dated" 2D engine, with very 2D looking units, has come under great criticism from the TA fans especially. One reader even wrote and said he wasn't purchasing SC due to its lack of resolution options above 640x480! To me, the game's a blast, and the graphics are colorful, beautifully drawn, well animated and appropriately atmospheric. To others, they look old, worn and lacking that 'real' 3D feel. This split could be best defined as the same arguments that took place when Duke3D and Quake were released - Quakers argued that the technological achievements were amazing, while Dukers were more enthralled by the interactivity, the character and personality that Duke offered."

From the gamesdomain review.

Amusingly, I liked Duke3d's graphics a lot more than Quake, but I didn't like Starcraft's at all.

They went on to give it a Gold rating, though, which I don't understand in the slightest. I loved Warcraft I & II, but Starcraft just bored the hell out of me. Possibly "units have horrible individual AI" combined with "lots of ranged attacks", though I'm not sure why I just want to go to sleep when I think of the game.

I have a theory that the only reason Starcraft & Half-Life were so popular is that they came out at exactly the right moment: they seem to have been the first "good game" for quite a few people.

Of course, I'm just wildly generalizing.

>But yeah, the big draw of NWN is being able to hook up with several friends and a DM to play virtual D&D.

It should be a pretty decent single player game, especially since there's bound to be a ton of user-created modules almost immediately after the game's release. But, like Robert suggested, the game is focused on a multiplayer experience. You'll only be able to play a single character in single player, for example, unlike in Icewind Dale or BG.

>Pool of Radiance is a solo game mostly, if it ever arrives.

Ya. It's also changed primarily into a tactical combat game, from what I can tell. It may not be much more of an RPG than Fallout Tactics, but I do think it's relatively close to release and features great graphics and a very good UI.

Stefan

---

Quote:

On a completely different note: I'd love to see Brad Wardell do one of his infamous articles on the gaming industry that actually reads like he did more research than talk to four of his developer buddies. Where are the quotes from known developers and publishers?

---

"It should be a pretty decent single player game, especially since there's bound to be a ton of user-created modules almost immediately after the game's release."

This is what I'm hoping for. I just want to download a new mod now and then and play through it.

If Interplay, Bioware, and WotC could figure out a way to allow people to charge for mods, that could be interesting. While I'm sure there would always be free mods, allowing authors to make a little bit of money might spur some people on to make elaborate campaigns.

On the NWN homepage, they stated that, while they don't have any plans now to create a persistant world, there has been some intrest expressed by fans about using NWN's tools to create one. Who knows what the quality would be like, but I'd be interested in seeing how that would work out...

I think the problem is one of scale. NWN isn't designed for large groups of players. You'll get your persistent world fix when you find a group with a few people who are willing to create mods and DM them.

One thing to keep in mind with Brad and Stardock, for whatever perspective it provides, is that he creates games almost as a hobby. Brad told me that their WindowBlinds product line sells, well, a lot (I don't know if wants the actual number of copies and dollar figure made public.) It sells well enough globally that he doesn't "need" the income from the games they produce. It also allows him the rare luxury of being able to create a game on his own timeline. For example, Brad told me at E3 that they have GalCiv running to the point that it is playable and the AI is functioning right now, but he wants to keep working on it until he gets it to where he's completely pleased with the game, thus a release date of next year.

I only mention this because I think it helps you to understand where he's coming from - whether you agree or disagree with his opinions.

Jeff

>It's also changed primarily into a tactical combat game, from what I can tell.

Well, then it should be a good spiritual follow-up to the original Gold Box game. I mean, you spend 99% of your time in that game in the 3/4 tactical combat screens.

re: Brad and his articles - well, I'd really be fine with them if they were written more like Phil's columns, with a "this is my personal experience" vibe. But they seem to take his own microcosm of the gaming industry and expand that to everyone. And I think it misses the boat because of that quite often.

Maybe when he does the articles he does indeed do some real market-wide research and then forms his coclusions and opinions based on it, but it READS like it's the other way around.

re: Scott Miller - isn't he the Marketing Manager or something? For a game that's in a media blackout? What does he do all day? =) Seriously, 3D Realms people tend to mouth off about "the industry" and they're often quite right about things...IF THE INDUSTRY WAS ALL MAKING THE NEXT DUKE NUKEM GAME. Their company and that product are just exempt from the ordinary rules. Other people can't afford a "when it's done" schedule that means 5 years of development and licensing fees for two game engines. Other people can't have system requirements of a 600 MHz machine and 128 MB with 32MB video card as a minimum - a luxury Duke has because it'll be on shelves a year after release when such a machine is just plain pitiful. Some products can't afford to release outside the holiday season or outside the publisher's fiscal quarter. Some product have to be out in time for the launch of a piece of hardware.

The list of hard realities that most game developers have to deal with that 3D Realms does not is pretty significant.