(![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
eleanore posting in ![[community profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/community.png)
girlgamers Nov. 19th, 2012 01:06 pm)
eleanore posting in girlgamers Nov. 19th, 2012 01:06 pm)Hello! You might not remember little 'ol me, but I'm a long-time member, second-or-third-time poster. Today, I'm here to talk about a little something I like to call "The Cycle of Gaming" and, specifically, how the surge of "micro-gaming" companies fit into it. This might not be your cup of tea, but bear with me, gentlewomen. Bear with me.
Let's begin with the dawn of gaming -- the Pong age. Back then, everyone and their mother's company were producing some variation on the Pong console. Atari did it. GE did it. Even Nintendo got into the game -- but only in Japan. The field was wide open and people didn't really know what the limits of the technology of gaming were. At the time, all you could do was some variation on the classic "two bars and a square". Since it was a virtually newborn market with the possibility for large technological advances, companies jumped on the bandwagon of video gaming and began mass-producing what was basically the same product -- with some extras or strange controllers aside. The world of gaming expanded and exploded.
Then came the big granddaddy of them all -- the Atari 2600, which tried to compete with the arcade games for quality and market share. Of course, there were other competitors, but none made such an impact as Atari did in the early 80s. Companies soon realized that they either a) didn't want to put time, effort, and money into competing with Atari, or b) would go bankrupt trying to do so. Thus, the world of gaming narrowed -- with the exception of a few choice competitors.
This doesn't mean that there was no OTHER game capable devices around. The early computers of the day -- however primitive by our standards -- could handle basic games, and some later computers could even match the Atari 2600 with quality. These were far and few between, as computer-based gaming was a small and niche market in the mostly business-based market of the day. There were even competing CONSOLES -- including the Colecovision, the Odyssey, the Intellivision, and the Fairchild. These were but insects before the mighty God that was Atari.
Atari ruled as a king, gorging itself on the hundreds of third-party developers that prostrated themselves in front of the joystick god. Everything was made into a video game -- movies, books, television shows. But the salad days could not last forever. Some of you may be familiar with the year 1983 and its effects on the world of gaming. Some of you might even know the fabled, horrific, Lovecraftian games that are blamed for causing such an event. I dare not speak their names, but let's just say that they begin with "E" and "P", and ends with "T the Extraterrestrial" and "ac Man". However, it was more of an overflow in the market that led to this fabled dark day. And that's what I'm going to talk about today -- saturation of the market by small, "indie" game companies.
Let's walk and talk, you and I. Most of you -- I assume -- have an Apple device or something similar -- such as an Android or Windows phone. You like them, right? They play little tinny tunes in your ear, remind you to walk the dog, or keep all of those handy-dandy emails from Nigerian princes with you always. Now, most of you have -- again, assuming -- have used these nifty little hunks of plastic to buy something called an "app".
I'm not going to explain what an app is to you, as I am sure that a community of such lovely ladies is well versed in the language of technology. However, let's talk -- or you'll just sit there and read -- about the effect these wonderful bits of coding have brought to us, hmm? It's not hard to get a license to produce games on an Apple, Android, or Windows product -- just pay a chunk of change and get the rights to their code. Then, the sky's the limit within the guidelines set forth by the big guys in charge. Any number of businesses and individuals can do this with the right amount of money and know-how. Thus, a tidal wave of various apps have flooded the market.
Now, what's the point you say? Why should you, the consumer, care about a glut of apps and widgets available for X dollars and ninety-nine cents? Well, to put it simply, the overflow of apps will lead to competition among similar apps. It already has. Look at any successful games available for mobile devices -- Fruit Ninja, Farmville, Angry Birds, etc. -- and look at the similar games available both before and after their release. After the success of Farmville -- for example --, there was an EXPLOSION of management/building games using the same "free for play, pay for extras" model. Now, this doesn't mean that EVERY game in this style is ripping off Farmville or any other popular app, but individuals and companies looking to make money and sell their games are always on the look-out for what's popular in their target audience.
With such fierce competition and such large disparity between profit margins, the online market for downloadable content or what I like to call "micro-downloads" can draw attention from otherwise unaffiliated and uninterested organizations or industries. In the next few years, you might see other micro-downloads available from any number of places -- from purchasing certain features for your cable service, to whole browsers or their various options, to even purchasing small upgrades and gadgets for your operating system.
Essentially, the proliferation of a wide assortment of competing micro-downloads for mobile devices could lead to a more wide-spread proliferation of competing micro-downloads for everyday life.
Any thoughts, questions, jabs, or hate messages?
Let's begin with the dawn of gaming -- the Pong age. Back then, everyone and their mother's company were producing some variation on the Pong console. Atari did it. GE did it. Even Nintendo got into the game -- but only in Japan. The field was wide open and people didn't really know what the limits of the technology of gaming were. At the time, all you could do was some variation on the classic "two bars and a square". Since it was a virtually newborn market with the possibility for large technological advances, companies jumped on the bandwagon of video gaming and began mass-producing what was basically the same product -- with some extras or strange controllers aside. The world of gaming expanded and exploded.
Then came the big granddaddy of them all -- the Atari 2600, which tried to compete with the arcade games for quality and market share. Of course, there were other competitors, but none made such an impact as Atari did in the early 80s. Companies soon realized that they either a) didn't want to put time, effort, and money into competing with Atari, or b) would go bankrupt trying to do so. Thus, the world of gaming narrowed -- with the exception of a few choice competitors.
This doesn't mean that there was no OTHER game capable devices around. The early computers of the day -- however primitive by our standards -- could handle basic games, and some later computers could even match the Atari 2600 with quality. These were far and few between, as computer-based gaming was a small and niche market in the mostly business-based market of the day. There were even competing CONSOLES -- including the Colecovision, the Odyssey, the Intellivision, and the Fairchild. These were but insects before the mighty God that was Atari.
Atari ruled as a king, gorging itself on the hundreds of third-party developers that prostrated themselves in front of the joystick god. Everything was made into a video game -- movies, books, television shows. But the salad days could not last forever. Some of you may be familiar with the year 1983 and its effects on the world of gaming. Some of you might even know the fabled, horrific, Lovecraftian games that are blamed for causing such an event. I dare not speak their names, but let's just say that they begin with "E" and "P", and ends with "T the Extraterrestrial" and "ac Man". However, it was more of an overflow in the market that led to this fabled dark day. And that's what I'm going to talk about today -- saturation of the market by small, "indie" game companies.
Let's walk and talk, you and I. Most of you -- I assume -- have an Apple device or something similar -- such as an Android or Windows phone. You like them, right? They play little tinny tunes in your ear, remind you to walk the dog, or keep all of those handy-dandy emails from Nigerian princes with you always. Now, most of you have -- again, assuming -- have used these nifty little hunks of plastic to buy something called an "app".
I'm not going to explain what an app is to you, as I am sure that a community of such lovely ladies is well versed in the language of technology. However, let's talk -- or you'll just sit there and read -- about the effect these wonderful bits of coding have brought to us, hmm? It's not hard to get a license to produce games on an Apple, Android, or Windows product -- just pay a chunk of change and get the rights to their code. Then, the sky's the limit within the guidelines set forth by the big guys in charge. Any number of businesses and individuals can do this with the right amount of money and know-how. Thus, a tidal wave of various apps have flooded the market.
Now, what's the point you say? Why should you, the consumer, care about a glut of apps and widgets available for X dollars and ninety-nine cents? Well, to put it simply, the overflow of apps will lead to competition among similar apps. It already has. Look at any successful games available for mobile devices -- Fruit Ninja, Farmville, Angry Birds, etc. -- and look at the similar games available both before and after their release. After the success of Farmville -- for example --, there was an EXPLOSION of management/building games using the same "free for play, pay for extras" model. Now, this doesn't mean that EVERY game in this style is ripping off Farmville or any other popular app, but individuals and companies looking to make money and sell their games are always on the look-out for what's popular in their target audience.
With such fierce competition and such large disparity between profit margins, the online market for downloadable content or what I like to call "micro-downloads" can draw attention from otherwise unaffiliated and uninterested organizations or industries. In the next few years, you might see other micro-downloads available from any number of places -- from purchasing certain features for your cable service, to whole browsers or their various options, to even purchasing small upgrades and gadgets for your operating system.
Essentially, the proliferation of a wide assortment of competing micro-downloads for mobile devices could lead to a more wide-spread proliferation of competing micro-downloads for everyday life.
Any thoughts, questions, jabs, or hate messages?
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
I remember back then! :) I had all but the Fairchild hehe. Spoiled little kid with Atari, C64, Colecovision, Intellivision, Odyssey hehe.
When micro transactions started popping up in games like Runescape and City of Heroes while I was playing I was sooo angry. I felt I was already paying a subscription, why am I having to pay for all this new content? I blamed Farmville and the rest of the Facebook games for starting it. Eh, but it's been a while and I guess I just have to accept that's the way it is. I even buy extra stuff now and then because some of the stuff is nice and if I give Jagex a little bit extra maybe they'll keep adding good stuff and hopefully not shut down. Sadly, that didn't work with city of Heroes which shuts down on the 30th of this month. :(
They still add free stuff all the time otherwise I doubt I'd play cause I likely wouldn't be able to afford all the new content.
I also play Avengers which is one of those facebook games I blamed. I don't spend money on it and it puts me at a disadvantage in what seems to be the main purpose of the game, PVP. RS hasn't added anything like OP weapons or armor. Almost all just cosmetic things you can buy. There's some xp lamps you can win with Prize Wheel spins you get 2 a day or you can buy extra though.
I don't even know where I'm going with this as you probably know how I am if you've been a long time member haha! I can't really comment on the apps stuff because I'm the last person in a first world country without a cellphone. :P
Question
Do you ever pay extra for things that you can play for free?
hate message
XD Gods I love Grumpy Cat. <3
From:
no subject
This as I understand it is not like an ala carte pricing system like I think you might be suggesting for OSs and cable, where there are many aspects to service that you may not want or ever use, and thus it is sensible and economical to not get Office if all you'll ever use or need is Word, for example.
From:
no subject
My apologies, madam. :)
But, yes, you got what I was TRYING to say through three days of sleeplessness and three cups of java. ;)
From:
no subject
I have to say: all props to indie devs, but if you put out a complete awesome app it's going to be better than something half-done with a half-dozen micro-transactions to be bolted on, and consumers and critics are going to notice and vote with their PayPal accounts.
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Disclosure: I'm a woman nearing 30 and although I have some debt (okay, rather a lot) I also have an excellently-paying job that allows me to support my hobby (gaming, tabletop and electronic both) in the manner I prefer. My personal rubric for whether a game was a "good value" is what the "dollars per hour" works out to be - when I'm done with the game, how much did I pay for each hour I played? I typically consider a game a "good value" if the ratio is $1 or less per hour I played. My copy of Final Fantasy III on the SNES is closer to 5 cents per hour I've played, and continues to go down. (All figures USD.)
That being said - free/cheap games with microtransactions really chap me for the devs' sake. I genuinely do not mind paying for games! You made a thing! Please let me pay you for it! Obviously I am speaking here from a position of privilege, but I have to say, every time someone looks at a game that will provide 40+ hours of content (let's pick on Final Fantasy Dimensions, here) and complains that $28USD is "too much" for that amount of content--really, are you kidding? You must be joking. (It chaps me extra when people freely admit they'd pay $40 for it on DS/PSP/console of choice but "it's too much for an app." IT'S THE SAME DAMN THING. DEAL WITH IT.
ahem.
To more directly address your idea of micro-downloads for everything: Christ on a pogo stick would I love to pay for my cable service that way, but it'll never happen; Comcast et al. make their real money charging you beaucoup bucks for the two channels you care about (in my case, SyFy and ESPN) in order to sell you the list you don't want. If people could buy only the channels they care about, the telcos would make far less money.
That being said, Apple's OS has evolved almost unto the point of micro-transactions; typically they release a new OS each year for about $30USD. Windows is different, but Windows is also aimed at the enterprise market, not consumer, which possibly invalidates my point. And music, TV seasons, etc. are already there by way of iTunes.
In other words, I think we might already be there, at least insofar as we can be.