7 ms·

"I do wonder whether the future of gaming will eventually move towards a model like DF, ADOM, WoW, DOTA 2, EVE etc, whereby instead of completely new games ever

"I do wonder whether the future of gaming will eventually move towards a model like DF, ADOM, WoW, DOTA 2, EVE etc, whereby instead of completely new games every year that generally just feature updated graphics, we will instead see a few games in each genre becoming more and more fleshed out over the course of years or even decades." You're assuming people want more complex games, but (note my complete lack of sources) history has shown that people move towards less complex games over time. Dwarf Fortress will never go mainstream, because not everyone wants a complex game. A lot of people like games that they can wind down with, that don't need thinking for.

wtetzner 10y ago
Just because the implementation of a game is complex, doesn't mean the gameplay has to be. Having a richer world to interact with means there's more stuff you can do, but not necessarily more stuff you have to do. In fact, it could be quite relaxing to just explore the world, and have conversations with interesting NPCs.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  That takes time, effort, skill, and dedication to craft. You do get games like that... Witcher 3 springs to mind in fact. It's not something EA or Ubisoft can crank out twice a year and monetize to the tune of $120-$200 per unit.
  - wtetzner 10y ago
    No, but they might be able to crank out expansion packs twice a year, to add some more depth. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that everything will move to that type of game. Just that "complex simulation" doesn't have to map to "complicated to play".
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      I agree, but I think "complex simulation" is the opposite kind of product most AAA houses are designed to produce. Most games are far far from complex, to the point of adding on arbitrary mechanics to add a feel of complexity. After all, complexity requires thought, balance, testing... and again it's just easier to crank out a turd that people will thank you for offering them.
izacus 10y ago
Then again, you're assuming that "people" are a amorphous mass that only wants one thing. There's space for wide variety of genres and game types, complex ones to simple ones. It's a market in which more than billion people participate after all.
- M_Grey 10y ago
  Right, but how many of those billion play DF? How many play CoD? How many play "Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732" on their phones?
  - throwaway2048 10y ago
    Valve has made more money catering to traditional video game types than Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732 ever has or will.
    - M_Grey 10y ago
      This is the same Valve with the "hat" empire, and CS:GO gambling scandals, right?
      - Mithaldu 10y ago
        Claiming those to be equivalent to default mobile f2p business strategies of "selling rounds of play like in arcade machines, but hiding it" is either highly ignorant of the gaming market at large, or malicious. Which do you want it to be?
        M_Grey 10y ago
        I don't know, which was Valve in those cases? Besides, you're the one arbitrarily deciding that f2p = pay for rounds only.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Alright, thanks for making it clear that you're on the side of lack of knowledge. I'll give you a quick summary: Whether you are aware of it or not ""Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732" on their phones" is for the vast majority of entries "pay for round". This occurs so overwhelmingly often that it's fair to ignore any other kinds of entries as lone outliers. And if you can't tell that it's "pay for round", then that is exactly what they want and an explicit design goal of hiding the price behind multiple layers of redundant currency and keeping the price invisible for the first few tens of hours and then slowly ratcheting it up over time. Valve has done nothing that is even remotely similar to this.
xaa 10y ago
There are two factors at play here. First, if you track an individual gamer over time, I think they generally will gradually prefer increasingly complex games. Not necessarily "complex" in the sense of difficulty, but in the sense of depth; as sibling suggests, deeper worlds with more things to explore, etc, even if that exploration is not thinking-intensive. But at the same time, the market for games has expanded greatly due to in-browser games, smartphone games, etc. Those people are "introductory/casual gamers". Some of them will remain casual, some of them will stop gaming entirely, but I think of those who continue gaming, many of them will come to want something more. So, in short, the existence of lots of really shallow games largely reflects an expanded market IMO rather than some inherent shallowness of humanity. I share your cynicism in the sense that there are some who will never move beyond FarmVille, and that is sad, but I cannot imagine what mechanism would drive, or what evidence would support, the average individual gamer preferring less complex games over time.
- Mithaldu 10y ago
  I was thinking that OP is wrong and ignoring the existence of multiple types of gamers, but your analysis is much better thought-out and very insightful. It can sometimes be difficult to remind that the games market is still strongly growing and that it'll be a generation or two more until it settles into more clear shape.
- ebrenes 10y ago
  > but I cannot imagine what mechanism would drive, or what evidence would support, the average individual gamer preferring less complex games over time. Lack of time is a strong driver for some gamers opting towards simpler games, or at least games whose complexity does not translate into requiring additional time for mastery/understanding. In my circle of gaming friends, as our available time is under greater pressure we've purposely moved away from games that require significant investment of time to those that perhaps retain some complexity but reward a casual time investment. Another factor I've seen that affects is the demand of contiguous blocks of time to game properly. Some games do not permit breaking up game sessions arbitrarily, so while one might have ample leisure time, there might be multiple interruptions in between which make playing certain games impossible or a burden.

wtetzner 10y ago

Just because the implementation of a game is complex, doesn't mean the gameplay has to be. Having a richer world to interact with means there's more stuff you can do, but not necessarily more stuff you have to do. In fact, it could be quite relaxing to just explore the world, and have conversations with interesting NPCs.

M_Grey 10y ago
That takes time, effort, skill, and dedication to craft. You do get games like that... Witcher 3 springs to mind in fact. It's not something EA or Ubisoft can crank out twice a year and monetize to the tune of $120-$200 per unit.
- wtetzner 10y ago
  No, but they might be able to crank out expansion packs twice a year, to add some more depth. Anyway, I'm not suggesting that everything will move to that type of game. Just that "complex simulation" doesn't have to map to "complicated to play".
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    I agree, but I think "complex simulation" is the opposite kind of product most AAA houses are designed to produce. Most games are far far from complex, to the point of adding on arbitrary mechanics to add a feel of complexity. After all, complexity requires thought, balance, testing... and again it's just easier to crank out a turd that people will thank you for offering them.

izacus 10y ago

Then again, you're assuming that "people" are a amorphous mass that only wants one thing. There's space for wide variety of genres and game types, complex ones to simple ones. It's a market in which more than billion people participate after all.

M_Grey 10y ago
Right, but how many of those billion play DF? How many play CoD? How many play "Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732" on their phones?
- throwaway2048 10y ago
  Valve has made more money catering to traditional video game types than Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732 ever has or will.
  - M_Grey 10y ago
    This is the same Valve with the "hat" empire, and CS:GO gambling scandals, right?
    - Mithaldu 10y ago
      Claiming those to be equivalent to default mobile f2p business strategies of "selling rounds of play like in arcade machines, but hiding it" is either highly ignorant of the gaming market at large, or malicious. Which do you want it to be?
      - M_Grey 10y ago
        I don't know, which was Valve in those cases? Besides, you're the one arbitrarily deciding that f2p = pay for rounds only.
        Mithaldu 10y ago
        Alright, thanks for making it clear that you're on the side of lack of knowledge. I'll give you a quick summary: Whether you are aware of it or not ""Fee2PlayRobbery#8816732" on their phones" is for the vast majority of entries "pay for round". This occurs so overwhelmingly often that it's fair to ignore any other kinds of entries as lone outliers. And if you can't tell that it's "pay for round", then that is exactly what they want and an explicit design goal of hiding the price behind multiple layers of redundant currency and keeping the price invisible for the first few tens of hours and then slowly ratcheting it up over time. Valve has done nothing that is even remotely similar to this.

xaa 10y ago

There are two factors at play here. First, if you track an individual gamer over time, I think they generally will gradually prefer increasingly complex games. Not necessarily "complex" in the sense of difficulty, but in the sense of depth; as sibling suggests, deeper worlds with more things to explore, etc, even if that exploration is not thinking-intensive. But at the same time, the market for games has expanded greatly due to in-browser games, smartphone games, etc. Those people are "introductory/casual gamers". Some of them will remain casual, some of them will stop gaming entirely, but I think of those who continue gaming, many of them will come to want something more. So, in short, the existence of lots of really shallow games largely reflects an expanded market IMO rather than some inherent shallowness of humanity. I share your cynicism in the sense that there are some who will never move beyond FarmVille, and that is sad, but I cannot imagine what mechanism would drive, or what evidence would support, the average individual gamer preferring less complex games over time.

Mithaldu 10y ago
I was thinking that OP is wrong and ignoring the existence of multiple types of gamers, but your analysis is much better thought-out and very insightful. It can sometimes be difficult to remind that the games market is still strongly growing and that it'll be a generation or two more until it settles into more clear shape.
ebrenes 10y ago
> but I cannot imagine what mechanism would drive, or what evidence would support, the average individual gamer preferring less complex games over time. Lack of time is a strong driver for some gamers opting towards simpler games, or at least games whose complexity does not translate into requiring additional time for mastery/understanding. In my circle of gaming friends, as our available time is under greater pressure we've purposely moved away from games that require significant investment of time to those that perhaps retain some complexity but reward a casual time investment. Another factor I've seen that affects is the demand of contiguous blocks of time to game properly. Some games do not permit breaking up game sessions arbitrarily, so while one might have ample leisure time, there might be multiple interruptions in between which make playing certain games impossible or a burden.