Close
Report Comment to a Moderator Our Moderators review all comments for abusive and offensive language, and ensure comments are from Verified Users only.
Please report a comment only if you feel it requires our urgent attention.
I understand, report it. Cancel

Plants vs Zombies 2 downloads have already exceeded original

Plants vs Zombies 2 downloads have already exceeded original

Fri 30 Aug 2013 6:09pm GMT / 2:09pm EDT / 11:09am PDT
MobilePublishing

PvZ2 is at nearly 25 million downloads, which is more than the total lifetime downloads for the original PvZ game, EA said

Electronic Arts today announced on its official blog (along with a pretty infographic) that Plants vs. Zombies 2 has almost reached a total of 25 million downloads since its release, which gives it a greater downloads total than the original PvZ's lifetime figures.

It was only 10 days ago that EA announced 16 million downloads for the free-to-play title, dubbing it the "most successful game launch" in EA history.

Plants vs. Zombies 2 is currently an iOS exclusive (coming to other platforms later this year), and it serves as the latest example of EA's App Store dominance. EA was the number one global publisher in the iOS game market in the June quarter - The Simpsons: Tapped Out recorded its highest revenue quarter since launching in August 2012, while Real Racing 3 surpassed 45 million downloads.

32 Comments

Spencer Franklin Concept Artist

95 125 1.3
An F2P version of a very popular title that was a paid app...... so is this really that surprising? What I would like to know is if the actual sales figures have exceeded the originals... considering nothing has been said about that, and the multitude of negative feedback on the app store for having an F2P format... I'm guessing no...
It seems odd to me, that even in the article, they mention the revenue of Simpsons Tapped Out (which has not previous version) but then Real Racing and PvZ2 (both sequels that have gone F2P this time around) only mentions download totals...

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Spencer Franklin on 30th August 2013 9:54pm

Posted:A year ago

#1

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
I think 25M players in a couple of weeks says all that's needed really. I can't wait to see how the F2P haters turn this into a negative. As that already ridiculous number continues to rocket, the hyerpbole is going to have to match it in escalation to "prove" something.

Lets just end this here with a killer blow. After only 2 weeks out and still apparently on the exponentiation part of the sales curve, PVZ2 is currently the 43rd most valuable title on the entire app store. My money has it making the top ten by end of September.
http://www.razorianfly.com/charts/grossing/

Even if 43 is as high as it ever got, anyone that thinks this hasn't already out-earned the previous game should really stop talking and go gen up on the numbers involved.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 30th August 2013 10:42pm

Posted:A year ago

#2

Julien ROBY

6 6 1.0
The relevant info that we will never get is probably "Have PvsZ2 Micro transactions generated more revenues than PvsZ1 huge sales volume?"
Cause at the end of the day, they may even have PvsZ2 downloaded a trillion times, if no one pays for anything it doesn't really make it successfull commercially (although yes it's still a big success in term of getting so many people playing the game - no doubt, not trying to diminish that)

Posted:A year ago

#3

Keldon Alleyne Handheld Developer, Avasopht Ltd

448 419 0.9
@Paul: there is hyperbole because it exists on both sides of the argument, the very reason why arguments are pointless.

Who in their right mind would take sides in these matters? I can see the pros and cons of f2p. I looked at the model a long time before it was adopted by games and it opens up a great deal of new possibilities.

Simple fact of the matter is that f2p imposes gaming mechanics. For some games this is great. It's like gambling in a sense because poker is a great deal more fun when money is involved. The mechanics that f2p has introduced has shown us how to engross players into games they may not have been interested in, like Solitaire. In fact even without the paying we've been able to use those reward mechanics outside of gaming. Duo Lingo have used this knowledge to great success.

But all I see from the f2p camp is a massive flag being raised saying it is totally better as if the older models should not exist at all. The second thing I see is that they measure the quality of a game purely by revenue, ignoring any sense of critical review, which I think is important in any creative industry.

Posted:A year ago

#4

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
Someone has to take the other side, else there won't be an argument - just a bunch of hating and diatribe.

As for "all you see" being a massive red flag, the "all you see" part is already dealt with in a different piece on this very site - the masses of people happy with the model aren't here defending themselves as they don't feel the need. And rightly so, I'm not sure who the neighsayers think they're representing either tbh.

And you've both already cast aspersions about how well this game is monetising despite the fact I already provided a link to the answer. Which is "very well indeed - better than almost everything else."

Just ftr, I read one review on Touch Arcade, who as a whole don't favour F2P, and they were very flattering. I personally don't like the game much and have never understood why so many do. There are way better td style games imo.

I've never understood why people quickly jump on the "but is it creative, what are the reviews like, is the game worthy?" It's very easy to answer that question and it really does all come down to money. If a game is shit, it will make none. That's because its the public's view that matters, and whether they buy it or not gives you your result. Anything else is just monday morning quarterbacking.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 31st August 2013 9:45am

Posted:A year ago

#5

Keldon Alleyne Handheld Developer, Avasopht Ltd

448 419 0.9
Someone has to take the other side, else there won't be an argument - just a bunch of hating and diatribe.
Why does there need to be an argument? Or perhaps I should use less ambiguous words so I will rephrase it.

What good does the communicative goal of stating points for one side while ignoring the whole picture and failing to add anything of value to the greater scheme of understanding? It's something that is covered in AI. When given information that conflicts with your beliefs you can do any one of three things:
- Adjust your beliefs, erasing any existing beliefs that contradict it.
- Ignore the idea entirely.
- Assert knowledge of both opposing views.

In an argument people typically choose the ignoring approach, which is what I call arguing. The first one is a type of conversion, which is really down to sheepish behaviour that rather than disseminate information they would just rather follow a person or a preformed viewpoint.

The third option though is discussion, a very fruitful activity that results in everyone coming home with more understanding. It eliminates diatribe, overstatements and trolling, and is just more conducive. Bearing in mind we are all professionals here (or at least intending to be), I would think it a very sad waste of one's time to argue.

When I come here I gain information. As much as I may disagree with some people's conclusions and trails of thought I can happily make use of their information, knowledge and experience.
I've never understood why people quickly jump on the "but is it creative, what are the reviews like, is the game worthy?" It's very easy to answer that question and it really does all come down to money.
Well the reason is because it isn't always about money. There are countless gems that failed to bring home the bacon, and plenty of junk that shifted large numbers. Naturally totally shit games will make less money. To suggest revenue is the only true measure of quality is to suggest there are no other factors involved in success, which we know is untrue.

Regarding the creative reviews: creative works can be assessed on its own purely by its own merits. So there are purists and lovers of the craft that have an interest in the integrity of the work itself. What is good is of course, somewhat subjective, but some things aren't completely so (see my comments about Total Recall below).

Further, we know that following people's habits does not do a good job of finding good products. That is why the industries of cigarettes, pay day loans and item / gold exchange are bringing in a lot of money. Money is about spending behaviour, not a measure of quality. Premium beef is higher quality than the extra value crap they sell at Asda (no ifs or buts); and we all know what sells more.

Because of there are many ways to make more money by actually creating a lesser product. In hip hop it's called dumbing it down, where highly technical writers reduce the complexity and expression of skill in order to appeal to a larger audience. It's why X-Factor has higher viewing numbers than Stars in Their Eyes or The Voice, which typically features far superior acts.

It's why shit films like the Total Recall remake* made their money back and genius offerings like The Fountain and countless others failed to or barely managed to brake even. It's also why there are higher viewing numbers for flash bang Hollywood blockbusters than the works of Shakespeare, or why 50 Shades of Gray outsells say, Sense and Sensibility. It's why artists make a living drawing caricatures in the west end and classically trained pianists are making hip hop music (and I'm saying nothing against hip hop, I make hip hop, but just think about that for a minute).

*: The Total Recall remake had terrible directing, acting, scripting, creativity, rendering, novelty and sophistication. It hit a high 7 on the predict-o-scale too. The twists were uninspiring and the entire offering lacked any sense of wit.

** this comment didn't post properly and some of it got lost

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Keldon Alleyne on 31st August 2013 11:02pm

Posted:A year ago

#6

Morgan King Animator

48 92 1.9
Ignoring it's potential for monetization, I think it's worth noting that the gameplay itself is notably worse than its predecessor in most regards specifically due to its F2P overlay.

Posted:A year ago

#7

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
Keldon, those gems you mention that didn't earn anything? The market deemed them shit because they didn't earn anything. It's really not about art or perceived value, or any insider opinion. If you put a pricetag on it (or in it), the expressed intention is to sell it. If it doesn't sell, that's because nobody wanted to buy it, and right there is the judgment of it's worthiness - by the people for the people.

If this gems authors care more about pleasing the punter than making sales, maybe that gem would've gotten more of an audience if it was properly free. Or as an interim, free to play.

And you missed my point about arguing. I meant that the options are either an argument (bad) or a diatribe (worse). I don't think I've found three people in the same room that can discuss F2P sensibly, noting its benefits as well as its supposed downside. And even if we started that way, some idiot would soon throw in "drug pushers" which is the modern day "hitler" of internet chat for me.

I'm already bored of typing the same things in whilst nobody's listening. I only really know about the mobile market, but you might want to read up on this: http://www.distimo.com/publications/archive/Distimo%20Publication%20-%20June%202013.pdf

The market their already voted. F2P has taken over the app store to the extent that premium apps make no money anymore. I can back that up with my own experience, our premium takings drop a lot each month and our chart position stays put. That's not a "position", it's a fact. And people that think F2P are a bad thing have already lost. The customers think it's great. That's it. The die has been cast. Really.

Posted:A year ago

#8

Carlos Bordeu Game Designer / Studio Co-Founder, ACE Team

65 90 1.4
Paul, of all the things you've ever posted here I cannot disagree more with the first paragraph of what you last wrote here. To suggest that an amazing game which sold terrible is considered 'shit' (even if your are talking in terms of the 'market') makes it look as if you think videogames are little more than any cheap product which you can just judge for its sales success.

If you're going to completely ignore any artistic merits of a good unsuccessful game (yes, I know you don't think games are art... I'm not going there), then you can at least concede the following 'business' benefits of developing one:

- A critically acclaimed game (that doesn't sell) still brings reputation to a studio. Publishers (and even consumers) will care about what you do next. You are very likely to be able to get a publishing deal for future projects if you did something that gets noticed in the press but doesn't sell so well. It is proof and a demonstration of talent, and people who are in the position of funding projects will take a notice.

- The existence of a good game can become something that will transform into value for the whole industry as we almost always take inspiration from the work of others for our own creations. I'm pretty sure anyone at this point has stood on the shoulders of generations of game developments for their own designs, and who knows how many of those ideas were born out of games that never sold well, but contributed to the growth of a specific genre. In other words we *in our own businesses* are making more money thanks to the clever ideas of someone else, and guess what - maybe he didn't get paid what he should have for his contribution.

Posted:A year ago

#9

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
>> To suggest that an amazing game which sold terrible is considered 'shit'

You are missing my point, and it's an important one so I'll try to explain it again.

It's not about words like "amazing" and definitely not about "considered". That's all very worthy, but in the games industry where developers are putting pricetags on things and selling them to the public, the only metric worth talking about is how many of those public spent how much. That is a direct answer to the question "how successful is it?" because the question should be geared to asking the customers, not the critics, and the customers vote in a very easily measured way - they buy or don't buy.

The exception to that is a marketing fail. And even though I'm useless myself at that part, I can still say with a straight face that if you can't sell a good game, it's not really that good after all - there are ways to get eyeballs that you don't need to be a PR expert to start off, and if this game is as good as you say then word of mouth should do the rest.

So yes, if a game that all the critics love gets exposure and doesn't sell, then it's a failure after all. If it sells, it's a success.

And in case you think I'm biased here, I have a game that the critics love and the punters don't and I consider it a failure.
http://www.pocketgamer.biz/r/PG.Biz/Great+Big+War+Game/feature.asp?c=53447

EDIT: I think the word "shit" is letting me down here as it's also a subective word, so I've noted that part thanks. Please replace all instances of "shit" with "failure" which is far more accurate to my point.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 1st September 2013 10:20am

Posted:A year ago

#10

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
>> A critically acclaimed game (that doesn't sell) still brings reputation to a studio. Publishers (and even consumers) will care about what you do next.

I think this is all a bit too arty and esoteric. Back in the real world, if the last project you made didnt sell then there probably won't be a next.

And as to making more money because everything's rosy and arty and beautiful? Sorry but that's rubbish too. My market sector has switched to F2P so heavily that our premium games are losing money month on month without a drop in the charts. They're still selling as well relative to other premium games, it's just that the entire market is disappearing. There's some realities here that I think you and others need to start paying heed too. This situation has long since stopped being a debate about merit - these customers looking for "worthy" games won't pay your mortgage.

Posted:A year ago

#11

Eyal Teler Programmer

85 84 1.0
Paul, I'm not sure why you feel gaming is different from other markets. All creative endeavours are about selling stuff, and the measure of "good" in all of them isn't just the money they make. In fact quite often the money makers are considered mediocre. It's a good thing that not all people think like you do, because otherwise we'd have no experimental or ambitious games. We'd have no failures like Planescape: Torment or Grim Fandango.

Posted:A year ago

#12

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
I don't necessarily feel that way tbh., but as a business people we have to think like that.

When people are looking for reasons to hate F2P, they hate on the concept for a while and then move on to the "is it good". When I then tell them this model takes all the money, it then seems to seque into "yeah, but its not all about the money". And it is really, isn't it. Nobody forces them to spend on iaps. They do so because they're enjoying it, despite many tinfoil hat explanations to the contrary.

So, we have the customer enjoying the game and spending lots of money on it. That right there is the definition of a major success in my world. If I have that wrong, I'm happy to stay wrong tbh. I'm unashamedly trying to making exactly that sort of success for my own company. And if I ever manage it, maybed I can sit back with the pressure off and afford to make something more arty next time.

And the saddest fact of all is that by even stating that out loud it makes me sound like a mercenary, when I'm really not. I run a game development business. To make money for myself and my staff, I have to make good games and sell them to a lot of people. That's hard enough without getting sidetracked with all this putting the world to rights crap.

Posted:A year ago

#13

Shane Sweeney Academic

390 398 1.0
It will come in cycles. I am a big advocate of F2P and not just mobile but in the AAA space. League of Legends with its 4 million daily uses can only exist because of it's F2P model (StarCraft only sold 11 million units as of 2013). But it's most certainly short cited to say all game design benefit's from F2P, plus it is short cited to say that permanently this is the only model that will exist in the mobile space. The market will ebb and flow.

Due to the flattening of distribution and the lowered bar of entry the market is flooded with titles which pulled the consumers expected price of games to $1. Obviously this is unsustainable. But it won't remain this way forever, the audience will progressively get more savvy to good and bad experiences (whereas any experience even a $1 is okay). Mobile specs accelerate faster than Moores law (benefiting from existing research from the desktop sector), A and AAA experiences will be found on mobile platforms. X-Com sold at a premium price and did quite well. Others will eventually fill this space.

That's not to say F2P doesn't belong, it obviously does but all F2P share a game play mechanic, a trope that will become overused (like they all do) and the market will diversify. It will come in cycles.

Firstly let's nib a few myths in the butt though. Firstly asking individuals if they found value in spending money on a skinner box does not yield meaningful results. What industry are we in? Making games or making money?

If you want to just make money produce a F2P slot machine app with 500 coins where you can only pull the handle down a max of 50 times and must wait 5 minutes for a new handle to generate or pay to buy additional ones. For good measure lets throw in some trophies for matching certain rarer symbols and gaining so much in game money.

If you asked people if they found value in spending money in my proposed F2P game the answer would be almost overwhelmingly yes. I know this because their is extensive research on behaviour patterns from those who lose money at Casinos almost universally say they found value in how they spent their money. Sure my F2P app doesn't earn anyone money, but as a culture are our problems with gambling the fact people could win money or was it the fact we had gamified *taking* money? Gamifying taking money as we all know very well results in some people being compelled to spend money against their will.

I guess as I said in the previous thread. Asking whether this or that game is wrong is not the right question. When does it become wrong is the right question. There will be a line that can be crossed; my slot machine design crosses it despite having customers that would be enjoying the game and spending lots of money on it.

Edited 3 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 1st September 2013 3:41pm

Posted:A year ago

#14

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
I actually don't think that's where the line is with that fruit machine example. If I thought for a second I could market it well enough, I'd have a guy in a back room making one. But then I don't see a problem with casino's either. I used to enjoy visiting them before I went into mobile development and ran out of disposable income.

I promise to get more philosophical when I can afford it. But right now I'm struggling to keep my guys paid because we got caught short in the epic shift away from premium mobile titles. We need to release something this time that will make money, which needs both F2P app and one that has good/fun gameplay. The PC Beta is available if you want to take me to task about anything after you've seen it. www.rubicondev.com/combatmonsters

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Paul Johnson on 1st September 2013 3:58pm

Posted:A year ago

#15

Shane Sweeney Academic

390 398 1.0
Well if we don't regulate our selves we could soon start finding F2P lumped in with Casinos... which is fine.
But then don't be surprised when the government legislates micro-transaction based games have a minimum age of 18 years of age to play them.

Difficult times or no difficult times I have no problem with PVZ2 or Rubicon moving into F2P. Just as an industry we need to constantly keep having sensible discourse!

Posted:A year ago

#16

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
I guess I just believe in personal responsibility. (For those not mentally able to exercise some, then I'm not against legislation as long as free thinking adults can make their own minds up unharrassed).

I really don't want someone else doing my thinking for me though, which is why I don't spend too much time overthinking anything else. The marketplace is a brutally Darwinian space and anyone doing stuff that the public don't like will find themselves out of business in pretty short order. I think that's all the "protection" anyone really needs in gaming or anything else.

To that other thing, I live in the UK where gambling is both legal and socially acceptable. We are not awash with wall to wall gambling addicts, despite their being many bookmaker "shops" in the town centres. I think this is mostly because it's not been forced into being something seedy that you have to keep quiet about, and nothing at all to do with psychological manipulation. We all know that the bookies win eventually, but playing the game is fun.

Posted:A year ago

#17

Shane Sweeney Academic

390 398 1.0
Free thinking *adults* is the key word. All these places do not allow Children; even in Britain.
It's illegal for children to place bets. It's illegal to advertise gambling during children's programming. I can't think of a country in the world that allows children to gamble.

I just fear that something the size of Angry Birds will come along that is F2P and really place the medias/legislators spot light on this really promising game model.

Edited 1 times. Last edit by Shane Sweeney on 1st September 2013 4:30pm

Posted:A year ago

#18

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
It's actually illegal for children to have their own credit card, I think. It's certainly voluntary if not statutory. Which I approve of and should be protection enough from children spending too much/anything on phone games - F2P or otherwise.

The best thing that Apple and Google could do though is switch from credit cards to carrier billing. Caps can be put on that easy enough and young kids with a phone primarily just for safety won't be able to spend anything without it being gifted from their parents.

Posted:A year ago

#19

Carlos Bordeu Game Designer / Studio Co-Founder, ACE Team

65 90 1.4
"Back in the real world, if the last project you made didnt sell then there probably won't be a next."

This is not true for many cases and too much of a generalization... it is well known that a high percentage of titles don't make money in this industry. Publishers and developers are aware of this. If every studio that made a game that didn't sell went down, we would be seeing much, much more studios close than we have up to now.

Think about Bulletstorm - we're talking about a multi-million dollar project that didn't make money:

"Bulletstorm didn't make any money but it was worth it":
http://kotaku.com/5823810/bulletstorm-didnt-make-money-but-it-was-worth-it

Posted:A year ago

#20

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
Do you not think the word "failure" came up in the board meetings?

I think we're done here. The whole thing was a straw man to begin with, and if you really are trying to convince me that a worthy failure is what we should be aiming at, then I'm just not listening. I'll soldier on with the ridiculous assumption that making popular games that are financially successful is still the goal of a game dev company. If all you other developers could get out the way and go make "art" instead, then that will help tremendously, thanks.

Posted:A year ago

#21

Andreia Quinta Creative & People Photographer, Studio52 London

224 590 2.6
Some believe that the mindset should be discarding the "art" factor and make games that are popular and financially successful first and foremost.
I believe the reason their games might not be popular and financially successful is precisely because they discard any artistic value in the first place. Making games is different from creating games.
"Back in the real world, if the last project you made didn't sell then there probably won't be a next."
Michel Ancel (Beyond Good & Evil; a commercial failure) would like to have a word. The only reason the BG&E was so acclaimed even after it's 'failure' was precisely due to it's artistic value (setting and story-wise). Go figure.

Edited 2 times. Last edit by Andreia Quinta on 1st September 2013 11:11pm

Posted:A year ago

#22

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
>> Michel Ancel (Beyond Good & Evil; a commercial failure) would like to have a word.
And I would like Michel Ancel's bank balance.

Posted:A year ago

#23

Carlos Bordeu Game Designer / Studio Co-Founder, ACE Team

65 90 1.4
"and if you really are trying to convince me that a worthy failure is what we should be aiming at, then I'm just not listening"

That was clearly not my intention. I was defending good games that don't sell pointing out that they can still have some value for their developers and the industry as a whole. I am obviously not suggesting that you or anyone should try to aim to make a game that you know will not sell. That is ridiculous.

Posted:A year ago

#24

Morgan King Animator

48 92 1.9
There's something to be said for building a strong, beloved, valuable IPs by treating customers as intelligent beings by not appealing to crass experience-detracting monetization efforts but in presenting an artfully designed, aesthetically rich experience. There's a reason Final Fantasy Tactics can sell at $16 after all these years and why Sword & Sworcery can sell 1.5 million at $5. Will 1 in 25 PvZ2 downloaders actually spend $5? I didn't, and I bought PvZ1 for full price on several platforms.

Posted:A year ago

#25

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
But I don't know why the current thread seems to assume that this can't be done in games that actually make money too. And Morgan, the accepted statistic is 1 in 20 that spend way more than five. So yes.

My Beta testers all seem to be having a whale of a time, and this unpublicised beta on one single platform we have no track record on (PC) is now our top earner. From a Beta! One of the other titles it is beating has a BAFTA nomination if that speaks to the "art and worthiness" factor, and it's cheap too. And yet a Beta of something else earns more? The public have spoken to me loud and clear.

Whatever, I think I'm being baited.

Posted:A year ago

#26

Bruce Everiss Marketing Consultant

1,692 594 0.4
For a couple of decades the game industry was stuck in a rut. Limited platforms, limited genres, stultifying business model. Consoles did a lot of damage.
Then suddenly there was a quick succession of revolutions. Social gaming, mobile and tablet, Unity and other modern development tools, app stores, free to play, metrics, digital distribution, gaming as a service, etc etc.
The public loved all this and the number of people playing games rocketed to be many times greater than before. The developers who embraced it loved it because it gave them immense freedom and an amazing relationship with their customers. The game industry is booming like never before. And it is a far better industry now with a flowering of creativity and genres. The industry is employing far more people with far more diverse skills and talents. These are the best of times.

Unfortunately the casualty has been the old console business model. It is faintly ridiculous to pay $60 up front for a cardboard and plastic product. The public don't like it. So the console business has contracted very sharply since 2008. It now attracts a fraction of the spend and has become a niche for a small set of genres played by a hobbyist audience. It will continue to contract. New console launches bomb, as we have seen with the Vita and WiiU. Their only way out is for them to embrace the revolution. Which they haven't twigged yet.

Despite that facts supporting all this are coming out in news stories every day there are still some industry people in denial. Luddites who can't see what is happening around them in the face of all the evidence. These people think that huge teams and huge spend are a means to themselves, that big is somehow better. When it is startlingly obvious that the vast majority of customers don't think this is so. Eventually those in denial must see the light. There has been a torrent of industry people who have. A high proportion of people who once worked in console now work in the new game industry.

Video gaming is now the biggest entertainment industry on earth, by several measures. This has happened very suddenly and there are many who don't realise it yet. The opportunities this presents to us are immense and are infinitely varied. The only limit is the human imagination. This is hugely better in every way than the latest iteration of Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto.

Posted:A year ago

#27

Carlos Bordeu Game Designer / Studio Co-Founder, ACE Team

65 90 1.4
Sorry Bruce, but your suggestions that the mobile platform is championing the creativity sector is something I don't agree with at all. I can concede you a lot of the rest (for instance the amount of people playing games now). But you always, always use the top grossing games of the mobile space as referents for the success of this 'new wave of gaming', and most of those titles are small variations of existing designs that were created years ago in the "decadent" game's industry that you often criticize.

That is not to say that the mobile space doesn't have truly original and innovative games. But are those games reaching the masses? I would argue that not, and that most of the truly unique experiences that are able to have a cultural impact are still born from the PC and console sector. I am pretty sure that those 'billions' of people playing on their tablet / phones are not playing the equivalent of Journey on their iphones. They are matching 3 colored candies and I don't see how that pushes the cultural relevance of this 'greatest of entertainment industries'.

When the majority of these billions of new people are experiencing something even remotely close to Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto, maybe then we can have a debate of moving forward creativity in the game's industry.

Posted:A year ago

#28

Eyal Teler Programmer

85 84 1.0
Paul, I don't think anyone is arguing that making money and making art contradict each other, we're just arguing that money isn't the measure of how good a game is. A game can be good in terms of art and make money, but in most industries the more literary works, or those considered more "a work of art" don't sell as well as lower common denominator titles. A lot of people don't like the idea that money is the measure of a game because this can lead to developers playing it safe and sticking to what is known to work, rather than trying new things.

The good thing is that we have crowdfunding now, and this can reduce the risk of trying some things.

Posted:A year ago

#29

Paul Johnson Managing Director / Lead code monkey, Rubicon Development

880 1,291 1.5
I understand that position Eyal, I just don't personally agree with it.

You can ask two types of people to get an average of how good something is. You can ask the critics for an armchair opinion, or you can ask the public who are the actual audience. I choose the latter, not just because that's the group my income depends on, but because ultimately I work in a service industry and if I can only pick one, the views of the people I'm servicing are a better reflection of how well I'm doing my job.

Of course I'd like to please everybody!

Posted:A year ago

#30
I think we're getting quality and commercialism mixed up here as if the two were at odds - sure they don't always tally but clearly with the games that matter they very much do. Coming down on one side or the other makes no sense when these two sides of the coin reinforce other when something is done well. Of the really huge games we're all familiar with now and remember from the past, the clear majority pushed the boundaries creatively too. They either were a radical iteration of something known or they were completely new experiences. They stood out. They deserved attention and so appealed to curiosity. Whenever I hear cat calling about these games from other devs about 'too commercial' or 'too creative/arty' I always assume it's devs getting one side of the coin or the other but not both, when both matter. As for 'Art' who cares, nobody even knows what that means anyway - what we do is a craft and what's wrong with being paid to be a craftsman ffs.

Posted:A year ago

#31

Login or register to post

Take part in the GamesIndustry community

Register now