At my wit's end with Nintendo. Any advice?

[Bohandas]

I'm pretty sure economics are not politics (or religion, unless we go really off script) so please make your case on how to make video games and music for free.

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

[Knaight]

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

Which isn't prevented by commercial industries, but does prevent full time creative work for all but the already wealthy. Somehow I suspect you'd dislike what that would do to artistic output.

[Kato]

Hobbyists producing stuff and then putting it online. There were lots of sites like this back when I was in college.

Uhm... And you don't think people who have to work next to making games will cause a decrease in if not quality, at least quantity of games? (but really, also quality because it's not like the hundreds of people working on a AAA title would work the same way if they don't get paid)

[Bohandas]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

[Knaight]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

I'm not just talking about reduction - I'm talking about how the people who's creative project is the only reason they aren't a member of the idle rich are going to produce fundamentally different art, and how art collapsing to only that viewpoint would diminish it (as would losing that viewpoint entirely).

Videogames weather this comparatively well, though I can think of a few this would lose that absolutely aren't graphics driven (including one graphically clunky gem made by actual Ph.D. professors and research scholars of mythology, which manages to have one of the most fascinating fantasy settings I've seen despite being a video game).

Music though? This would all but kill several genres.

[Forum Explorer]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

What counts as a graphically driven game? Is that any game that uses state of the art graphics for it's time? Because then I can think of lots of examples that have stood the test of time.

But really, limiting it to just games that are made for free would effectively wipe out video games. Any high quality ones anyways. And no, not just AAA games. Because all the great indie games, your FTLs, Cupheads, Undertales, ect, all cost money and would not have been made if it weren't for money.

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

For games, the only free stuff I know of is crappy unfinished games, and flash player games that are pretty low quality, if occasionally fun to play.

[CN the Logos]

People replying to Bohandas

Guys, his avatar is literally a set of Discordian symbols. You're being trolled. Like, super hard. It's actually a little impressive; pool players call shots all the game, but trolls successfully doing it is pretty rare.

[Rockphed]

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

For games, the only free stuff I know of is crappy unfinished games, and flash player games that are pretty low quality, if occasionally fun to play.

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

[Wookieetank]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

May I quote this?

[Rockphed]

May I quote this?

Of course.

[deuterio12]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

Battle for Wesnoth is free and sports better graphics than a lot of paid 2D games out there, including idle animations and whatnot.

Cave Story was initially released as a completely free game and became popular enough to jump into consoles.

Yume Nikki's a crazy beautiful game that could simply never been made if you were worrying about shareholders and profit.

A lot of nice little gems done in RPGmaker and released completely for free too like Ib.

Yes, there's a lot more crappy free games, but in the other hand there's also a lot more of crappy paid games.

[Knaight]

Because video games aren't like music or books. They almost always take a team of people to make, and the more complex the game, the more people needed. And hey, speaking of books, it's a good example of how money drives quality. Look at fanfiction. It's typically lower quality, much lower quality, then a fully published book. Yes, there are exceptions, but they are just that, exceptions.

So do books - editors, various people helping with research, editors, publishers, editors, cover artists (which isn't as important, but does help these books get found), editors. Books are better because authors have those networks of help, and without a commercial industry that goes away.

[Forum Explorer]

Dwarf Fortress would like to have a word with you. The word is decorated with bands of microcline and meanaces with spikes of rose gold. On the word is an image of the word in cinnabar.

Ha touche! Not that I've ever been able to play the game for any length of time, but it is a pretty (in)famous game.

So do books - editors, various people helping with research, editors, publishers, editors, cover artists (which isn't as important, but does help these books get found), editors. Books are better because authors have those networks of help, and without a commercial industry that goes away.

...I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me, or the picking a nit? Cause, yeah, a bunch of people can be involved in writing a book, but there is still (typically) one author. Even if you include all of the people who do anything involved with the book, they'd still be way less then the people involved in making a AAA game.

[Erloas]

...I'm sorry, but are you agreeing with me, or the picking a nit? Cause, yeah, a bunch of people can be involved in writing a book, but there is still (typically) one author. Even if you include all of the people who do anything involved with the book, they'd still be way less then the people involved in making a AAA game.

I think it still demonstrates the point. A book usually takes a lot fewer people to make, as does a song, when compared to a game. But that doesn't mean they take no people or that they take an insignificant amount of time and effort. Of course that is also demonstrated by the fact that a single song is now valued at $1 and most books around $10. It is also true of games, and programs in general, the big ones start around $60, the medium size ones are $20-40 and the small ones from free to $10, usually pretty directly correlated to how much effort was put into each. As much derision as some AAA games get, even ones that are similar to previous versions, they all have a *lot* of people working on them, if you believe it was wasted effort or not doesn't change the fact that it was work.

The free games/programs generally come down to one of three things. They really are just that simple and the person probably put it together in their free time for fun, or possibly it is a senior project or simply school/work experience. They are driven by advertising, in which case they aren't free, it is just that you are now the commodity and the program is just a fancy vehicle for the ads. Or they are selling something else, aka it is a demo version of the program or you're buying a fancy sword or armor, the game just makes you want that thing, i.e. microtransactions.

[Rockphed]

The free games/programs generally come down to one of three things. They really are just that simple and the person probably put it together in their free time for fun, or possibly it is a senior project or simply school/work experience. They are driven by advertising, in which case they aren't free, it is just that you are now the commodity and the program is just a fancy vehicle for the ads. Or they are selling something else, aka it is a demo version of the program or you're buying a fancy sword or armor, the game just makes you want that thing, i.e. microtransactions.

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

[Rodin]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

Yeah, good luck with that.

The insurmountable thing for free software of all types is that it takes a lot of effort to make the stuff. If it's relatively small and can be done by one or two people then it's feasible. The larger the team gets, the less likely it becomes. Many of the indie games in my library were made by over a dozen people working full time to do so. A smaller title by an established studio will likely have around 100 people on staff. Big open world games and you're starting to talk about 500 people working full time and beyond.

Try mobilizing all that, and then saying "By the way, none of you are getting paid for spending 2 years of your life working 60 hours a week on this project". The police would never find the body!

People like being paid for their work. Film at eleven.

[Erloas]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

I would mostly roll that into one of the others. Many open source projects are done in people's free time. There are a few companies that put part of programs into open source, but that is usually to encourage people to build stuff to work with their products. Or to get individuals to use their products so they can sell support to their companies. There is always money involved, some are just more clever in figuring out how to get it. Even the free ones from individuals are often essentially a resume to make themselves more money.

Not that I don't appreciate all the open source work being done, but I know someone has figured out a way to make money off the effort.

[Kato]

I think nobody is claiming that there is no free, good software (or music, or writing).
But claiming these fields could be sustainable solely by people who do it for free / in their spare time is utopian. Or delusional. People need to eat, and unless you somehow manage to feed your family without working, you won't be able to make as if it's your job.
The most likely approach (in my mind) is a donation / pay what you want approach, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on people's generosity to make a living.

[BeerMug Paladin]

On the topic of book editors, I have read multiple (albeit brief) accounts of writers describing their editors' input as largely transformative of their work. Now I don't know about established writers, but I can't even conscript people I know into providing editing advice. Not that I know any professional editors, granted.

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

This doesn't strike me as a serious or particularly informed statement.

Audiences are fickle, and graphics/music- no matter what people say- matter quite a bit.

Generally with art, the pop culture stuff is largely garbage. Now and then forces align to produce something with artistic merit, tapping into the same pool of resources as what the festering garbage heaps utilize. It's just how things work in our wacky world.

[Anarion]

The most likely approach (in my mind) is a donation / pay what you want approach, but I'm not sure how much you can rely on people's generosity to make a living.

I think if you took away the ability to protect and sell individual game units, the most likely outcome would be everything being pre-funded in the style of either kickstarter or by wealthy investors (who might themselves raise money from other groups). Lots of people just wouldn't make anything unless they got paid up front to do it. That wouldn't be horrible, it's not like kickstarter style fundraising is bad, and I'm sure lots of cool projects would get funded. It would probably increase the value of name recognition a lot though and make it much more challenging for a new developer to break into the industry, since people generally aren't willing to pay to speculate on somebody they've never heard of who might or might not be any good.

[Erloas]

I suppose if Kickstarter/etc. became the only way for new games to come about then more people would be looking there. As it is, even the "viral" successes are relatively small in the grand scheme of things. Even the popular ones generally have had quite a bit of work done before they ever hit Kickstarter, to show what they want to do, and that all comes from the bank accounts and free time of the developers. inXile for instance specially said that what they could do in Torment was increased and expanded because of post Kickstarter sales from Wastelands 2, then both of those went in to increase a Bard's Tale, and all of those together are helping with Wastelands 3. So normal growth of a company just like you would expect. The point being that all of the games would be diminished if funds were only ever coming from crowdsourcing.

I think there would also be a lot more failed projects. I'm just about positive that the vast majority end "in the red" knowing that it will be made up for in post launch sales. If that is gone there is no incentive to keep pushing. Sure you may never be able to try to launch another game, but who's going to work to stay in an industry that doesn't pay?

Or you know, more "mobile games" that are little more than timers linking ads.

[Bohandas]

4. They are created by True Believers who are trying to usher in the imminent open source future.

What hey really need to concentrate on is creatig an open-source AI program capable of generating other open source programs

[Bohandas]

Ha touche! Not that I've ever been able to play the game for any length of time, but it is a pretty (in)famous game.

You need to download the even more indie Dwarf Therapist accessory program. Makes it much more managable.

[Erloas]

The amount of games would be reduced, but hardly by an unnaceptably large degree. Plus, the losses would be disproportionately among the graphics-driven games, which are universally terrible anyway (if you don't believe me, try playing one that's more than four years old)

If you don't understand how graphics can be used to tell a story and set atmosphere then you just aren't paying attention. Granted not all advances are used to equal importance in all games, but pushing the limits forward makes it available for everyone and it will be used in many different ways.

edit: so as not to double post.
I would be interested to hear what a couple "graphics-driven games" from 2008-2013 are basically unplayable at this point. Also to contrast that, a few games from the same time period that are what you would consider being amazing examples of gaming.

end edit.

This doesn't strike me as a serious or particularly informed statement.

Audiences are fickle, and graphics/music- no matter what people say- matter quite a bit.

Generally with art, the pop culture stuff is largely garbage. Now and then forces align to produce something with artistic merit, tapping into the same pool of resources as what the festering garbage heaps utilize. It's just how things work in our wacky world.

https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2018/...r-things-game/
This is unfortunately all to relivant to the discussion.
Especially since their games were entirely story driven, they weren't focused on pushing graphics, they were well recieved and well reviewed, and that still didn't translate into enough sales. And how about that, not making money means a company can't exist.

[Bohandas]

Ok, I'll admit "four years" was a bit of an exaggeration. But if you go back far enough you'll find that while the puzzle and turn-based strategy games and RPGs generally remain as good as they ever were (or at least the ones from after two button mice were standard do), when you look at more graphics and engine driven genres like first-person shooters and real-time strategy if you go back far enough you'll find yourself saying "what is this ****" to AAA titles. This was my personal reaction to Half-Life 2 as a result of the fact that I first played the game in 2012; by that time the game's revolutionary graphics and engine were standard fare and all the time it spent showing them off just slowed the pace of the game down while contributing nothing.

[Erloas]

Ok, I'll admit "four years" was a bit of an exaggeration. But if you go back far enough you'll find that while the puzzle and turn-based strategy games and RPGs generally remain as good as they ever were (or at least the ones from after two button mice were standard do), when you look at more graphics and engine driven genres like first-person shooters and real-time strategy if you go back far enough you'll find yourself saying "what is this ****" to AAA titles. This was my personal reaction to Half-Life 2 as a result of the fact that I first played the game in 2012; by that time the game's revolutionary graphics and engine were standard fare and all the time it spent showing them off just slowed the pace of the game down while contributing nothing.

What you're really saying is that some gameplay styles don't age as well as others, which doesn't really have much to do with graphics. Half-Life 2 wasn't popular because of graphics, it was popular because of the story and the gameplay, it also happened to have above average graphics for the time too. But the good things about it's gameplay are now so ubiquitous in FPS games now that they are taken for granted and they've been refined and updated for 20 years. When you look at it Fallout 2 is still an amazing game, even if it can be a bit rough with what we're used to, but it also had "very good" graphics for the time.

When we look at a game like Tetris, Pacman, or Asteroid the appeal to those games was entirely gameplay, and they are also styles that haven't really been modernized, but what made them fun at the time is no longer enough and it doesn't really have anything to do with graphics. While someone might still play a Tetris game, they're not even going to be willing to pay a quarter to play it forever, let alone just once.

Even some puzzle and strategy games I don't think I could play any more because my expectations for the genre and what you *should* be able to do have progressed so much since they came out. I loved Sim City when it was new, but now it is too slow, too limited, and too basic to have any real appeal, and that doesn't have anything to do with graphics.

Considering that 20 years ago there really wasn't an "indie" scene and I can't think of any games from that time, that anyone talks about now, which wouldn't have been equivalent to a "AAA" game for the time; that some ages better than others doesn't seem to have much to do with who developed them, how much it cost to develop them, or where they fell on the graphics/hardware requirements.

[Rodin]

RTS games seem like a particularly poor choice, since the old games there DO hold up. Starcraft is considered the best RTS of all time for a reason, and that game is 20 years old. Heck, even Starcraft 2 is 8 years ago now. Both AAA titles that would not exist under a free software paradigm.

Heck, a quick Googling of "Best RTS games" doesn't show one that's less than 5 years old on the first page, and it takes 3 pages to get newer than 4 years old. You can hardly say that the fans of that genre are "graphic-driven". Oh, and all of the games on the list apart from MAYBE Sins of the Solar Empire are from big studios and would be considered AAA titles. The RTS genre simply would not exist without them.

[Bohandas]

RTS games seem like a particularly poor choice, since the old games there DO hold up. Starcraft is considered the best RTS of all time for a reason, and that game is 20 years old. Heck, even Starcraft 2 is 8 years ago now. Both AAA titles that would not exist under a free software paradigm.

Heck, a quick Googling of "Best RTS games" doesn't show one that's less than 5 years old on the first page, and it takes 3 pages to get newer than 4 years old. You can hardly say that the fans of that genre are "graphic-driven". Oh, and all of the games on the list apart from MAYBE Sins of the Solar Empire are from big studios and would be considered AAA titles. The RTS genre simply would not exist without them.

I was falling asleep when I wrote that last post, I may have been thinking of some other genre.

What I said about Half-Life 2 still stands though. The game looks for locks you in rooms with no action for ten or twenty minutes at a time to make you look at the now-obsolete facial animations on the NPCs. And there's also lots of things where the physics engine had a capability that the game didn't have a legitimate use for so they showhorned one in that doesn't fit to show it off. Chech out Yhatzee Crowshaw's video "Half Life 2 Update"

[Kato]

Well, I think it is obvious not all old games can hold up to modern standards but game development is a (mostly) continuous process. You can't jump from Pong to Breath of the Wild, games build onto things previous games did and improve upon them. Whether or not Half-life 2 holds up today, without it and similar games that are more or less dated today we wouldn't be where gaming is today.

[BeerMug Paladin]

Well, I think it is obvious not all old games can hold up to modern standards but game development is a (mostly) continuous process. You can't jump from Pong to Breath of the Wild, games build onto things previous games did and improve upon them. Whether or not Half-life 2 holds up today, without it and similar games that are more or less dated today we wouldn't be where gaming is today.

It seems to me that genres which do not significantly change over time end up having the games that are agreed to hold up over time. Just because there's nothing newer to look at in the older category in retrospect and notice that there's something important missing in the earlier work.

I hypothesize that genres that do develop and change over time by significant margins are generally regarded as ones that don't age well. That's because an experimental new formula found a quality-of-life improvement for the genre in question. It was missing before which all subsequent games include from that point on. And there's likely to be many incremental changes like this over a decade or so.

I also feel the need to point out that the older a game gets, the more likely it is that everyone has at least some knowledge of it. So people rating games which are older more highly than newer games is about as much a mystery as say, Citizen Kane being regarded as the Best Film of All Time. I should really try to watch that some time...