Panorama:Addicted to Games?

[Gribley]

Tonight on Panorama

"As pester power kicks in and the computer games' industry launches its latest products on to the Christmas market, Panorama hears from youngsters who've dropped out of school and university to play games for anything up to 21 hours a day. They describe their obsessive gaming as an addiction. Reporter Raphael Rowe, meets leading experts calling for more independent research into this controversial subject, and reveals the hidden psychological devices in games that are designed to keep us coming back for more"- BBC



http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00wlmj0

its on Tonight at 8:30pm UK time on BBC1

 

[thatbloke]

It's Panorama. It's there to be sensationalist and paint tihngs in as bad a light as is possible and this article would agree.

As a gamer myself I'm not going to waste an hour of my life watching that piece of crap

 

[Tetsuo_Shima]

Daily Mail readers will be frothing at the mouth over this stuff.

By the way, Eurogamer have an article on this : Just one more go ...

 

[Haven]

I'd watch it but ... erm yeah you know what I'll be doing

 

[Gribley]

so did anyone watch it?


what did you all think about it?

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

I thought about it, and have panorama on series record so ill get to watching it, however i dont see why anyone would want to make an addictive computer game, the way i see it is the faster you get done with a game or bored the more money you spend on other games, sure a company could make a really good game to keep you playing it and thus spend less money on games, but that would just hurt the entire industry as a whole.

Of course the counter argument is sell and outsell your opponents out of business.

 

[BiG D]

People won't keep spending money on games if they don't enjoy them...

 

[Spicypixel]

It was factually correct and I enjoyed it.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

People won't keep spending money on games if they don't enjoy them...

If you dont enjoy one game, that doesnt mean they wont enjoy another, i have plenty of games i dont enjoy, but that doesnt mean i wont buy anymore games.

 

[Ronin Storm]

i dont see why anyone would want to make an addictive computer game [...] the faster you get done with a game or bored the more money you spend on other games

That works in concept for boxed games, but not so for subscription games. WoW, for example, benefits financially from being as "addictive" as they can make it.

However, milking people for monies for crap games doesn't last long so, over time, even shovelling crap as fast as possible stops paying big monies.

 

[BiG D]

There's a difference between games you don't enjoy and games designed to make you bored so you buy a new game (which is the hypothetical you stated in the first place.)

 

[Panda with issues...]

However, milking people for monies for crap games doesn't last long so, over time, even shovelling crap as fast as possible stops paying big monies.

Does it? I mean, I was under the impression the Wii was still a massive earner for Nintendo, and all they do is put out shovelware.

 

[Ki!ler-Mk1]

That works in concept for boxed games, but not so for subscription games. WoW, for example, benefits financially from being as "addictive" as they can make it.

I figured what i said regarding depriving competators was the only reason i could come up with for making a subscription game.

Though, with wow, while making it addictive could lead to additional money from the blizzard store, there are plenty of people not addicted to wow or games that are subscribed to wow all year. I would count myself in that group.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Most (all?) subscription games are that way because they cost money to run that exceeds the money made from selling boxed copies. WoW charges monthly because their server and bandwidth costs are astronomical, not to mention the requirements of running a live team (GMs, technical support, etc). While they'd like all your money, it's not (directly) part of their business plan to drive out all competition by charging subscriptions.

Call of Duty and its ilk have shifted to peer-to-peer gaming so that the server and bandwidth requirements are minimal and thus keeps the running cost of the game to a minimum. As such, boxed copy sales are all that's required to keep money flowing in.

Simple enough formula:

Development Costs + Live Costs < Boxed Copy Income + Subscription Income

@Panda: I think there's plenty of shovelware on all platforms. I think my comment was more applicable to core gamers who, I'd argue, are a little more distinguishing.

 

[Panda with issues...]

@Panda: I think there's plenty of shovelware on all platforms. I think my comment was more applicable to core gamers who, I'd argue, are a little more distinguishing.

I guess this is a bit off topic now, but we're into an interesting (though different) discussion.

Do companies even NEED 'core' gamers any more? Will they in the future? As hardcore gamers, we don't really want to admit it, but the Wii is probably the 'winner' in this generation of consoles.

I'll admit to not knowing the numbers, but I'm under the impression (and not particularly surprised by if true) that the Wii has made the most money out of games and console sales.

Virtually NONE of that money is spent by people like us, who unfortunately have been forced to see it as a waste of potential filled with crap minigames.

The key markets in gaming seem to be trending that way, especially with Iphone games etc.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Still seems to have some relevance it's about those who are most likely to be affected by the issue of "addiction to games". i.e. the core.

Do companies even NEED 'core' gamers any more?

I think it depends on the companies in question. THQ, for example, is moving away from childrens' games and movie tie-ins and back to their core market, which is people like us.

Where there's demand, there'll be someone interested in supplying. Software development has, in my opinion, become a lot easier in the past 5 years and this has corresponding benefits for game development studios (when they are in a position to pick up on those benefits). I can't fund the time required, but I can see a realistic way of doing solo "bedroom" development on games right now and I, of course, would develop for core gamers.

Thing is, the core are a wide gamut of different gamers. I won't, solo, be producing triple A CoD-a-likes but I can realistically go after projects in the vein or scale of AI War, Minecraft, and so on (all also solo "bedroom" projects).

I guess that's where this ties back in to the original topic. Gamers are just like any other people: they come in different flavours. Some gamers also have obsessive compulsive behaviours. If it wasn't games, it'd be drink, drugs, porn, football, opera, nose picking, or whatever. Frankly, we should be spending more time looking at the mental health of the people studied in these programmes and then helping them do something about it rather than looking at the object of obsession and wondering what its addictive qualities are.

 

[Panda with issues...]

If it wasn't games, it'd be drink, drugs, porn, football, opera, nose picking, or whatever.

Shit yeah. I've been addicted to nose picking since I was came out of the womb. Why is no one highlighting my case?

 

[Ronin Storm]

We just figured you were naturally disgusting, is all.

 

[BiG D]

Software development has, in my opinion, become a lot easier in the past 5 years and this has corresponding benefits for game development studios (when they are in a position to pick up on those benefits).

Software development, perhaps, but the difficulty and cost of game development has absolutely skyrocketed. Every extra pixel the hardware can render adds hours upon hours of development time for any developer who wants their game to have decent graphics. Not to mention the added complexities of the (damn near requisite) persistent multiplayer.

 

[Ronin Storm]

Sure, won't argue that game development isn't expensive. Triple A titles have movie budgets and that seems borderline insane to me; high quality voice acting, HD visuals, pushing existing engines for even a 1% improvement... all very expensive. It's in this space that I can see why the industry would actively want addiction to their games, if only to keep the monies flowing. I do wonder whether that's why these documentaries are being made in the first place: just watching where the money is going and wondering if it's all kosher.

But there's a market beneath triple A, a space vacated by the main development studios, or at least by their A teams, that the bedroom programmer can slip into as easy as, well, just about any other form of software development. Keep seeing articles declaring how web games are the way of the future; not sure I agree entirely, but the point is that routes into game development are many and a good number no longer require the same level of graphics ninja skills that can make breaking into pro triple A development really difficult.