My take on the B-game debate

Business, Games 8 Comments

I picked up on the Gamasutra article about B-games thanks to Penny Arcade, and I found the debate fascinating. I’m a regular casual consumer of B-movies myself, thanks to the fact that the Sci-Fi channel shows them almost constantly, and their ability to amuse is seemingly inexhaustable. I also like the fact that you really don’t need to watch the whole of a B-movie to get something out of it, or even see the beginning or the end; you can have fun just trying to figure out the (usually awful) plot by just watching a 30-minute slot – in fact this is part of the entertainment.

So, B-movies are great because a) they’re highly amusing, b) they require little commitment, and c) they’re dirt cheap or free. So, why can’t this work for games too? Well, I think it can, and in some cases already does, but not without straying a bit further away from the centre ground of game industry. B-movies are made by people who are on the fringes of the traditional movie industry, and like art-house and international cinema, the fringes of the movie industry are far more developed than they are in the game industry right now. So actually, we’re not really talking about B-games per se; we’re talking about diversity and niche markets as a whole.

So how does diversity thrive? Most importantly, by lowering barriers to entry at all levels. Making games needs to be cheaper, quicker and accessible to all. The tools of the trade have to be widely accessible for little or no cost, they need to be mature and well understood, by a wide range of people from professionals, to students, to hobbyists, to retirees – everyone who wants to mess about in their garages (or in this case, home offices) for fun, education, and creative expression. With some variation on quality and scale, they all need to be using fundamentally the same principles and toolsets. Such openness and accessibility is necessary to create a melting pot of ideas and creativity that just doesn’t flourish as well  in a closed industry. It happened in the Super-8 generation, and look at all the great directors that nurtured.

I’m biased, but I think open source is simply the best way to deliver on this, hands down. Not just for people using the the open source projects directly themselves, but also in the lower cost commercial products they allow to be created with them, in the same way that cheaper manufacturing led to the higher availability of affordable camera technology for the masses to start experimenting with. Open source creates a ‘continuum’ of technology availability, allowing anyone to pick where they want to be on the scale of time investment vs. financial investment. Short on money, but have the time and energy to figure things out? Grab the open source components and build yourself a toolset. Got more money and less time? Supplement the base technology with packaged solutions & helpers – and those based on open source will likely be cheaper. Somewhere in the middle? Products built with open source tend to allow more granular decisions of that nature, not only because openness breeeds more competition, but also that the parts of packaged solutions are generally assembled from many interchangeable components, rather than being one big opaque tarball that you have to buy off the shelf, with limited choice & flexibility.

Publishing also needs to change, and that’s already started. To a degree the promise of the openness of digital distribution hasn’t delivered, since the majority of portals are still controlled by a small number of incumbents. The barrier to entry is lower, but it’s still out of reach for many – and that’s understandable from the perspective of those running the portal. However, what’s really needed is a greater range of portals catering to different audiences, user searchable portals in which quality rises to the top and is marketed on its merits rather than whether it is favoured by a portal owner. XBox Live Community Games tried to tap into that, but despite the positive step of letting the community rank content, it really hasn’t worked that well so far, due to the restricted toolset (XNA, no using native libs and little portability through which to maximise your tech investment) and almost complete lack of marketing; with most content there appearing like a second-class citizen. Apple’s AppStore has done a bit better – even though one company still controls the publishing decision, the toolset is less restrictive (you can use the full capabilities of the device, and use a far wider range of mature libs) and there’s greater perceived equality of content. Also, what the AppStore clearly showed is that people will happily buy ‘B-apps’ by the truckload if the price is right, and making them can be very worthwhile – provided it can be done cheaply. Cable channels also show that niche content can work, and will be paid for and enjoyed in small portions, so long as it’s part of a larger bundle. In all, I think there’s demand out there for a flatter, wider range of product than is generally sold right now, but we have to stop trying to shove it all through the single simple sales & marketing pipeline we use for AAA games.

Lastly, culture. In the core game industry,  a common attitude among both consumers and developers is that if it’s not a AAA game, it’s not worth the time of day. That’s not a universal opinion of course, look at how well Popcap have done for example, but I think it’s fair to say that as an industry, there’s a huge amount of elitism and focus on what I would call ‘whizbangery’ (Oxford dictionary, please save some space for that one in the next edition). We need to adjust our thinking and stop considering ‘worthwhile’ to mean ‘big budget, movie-like effects, cutting edge tech, 200-strong art team’. If it entertains, there’s a market out there for it, so we shouldn’t be so quick to dismiss games that don’t fall into a particular style & budget range. Provided the price is right (and the typical game price point is still far too expensive), people will pay for content that entertains them in one way or another, and that doesn’t have to be a 20 hour Hollywood-effects filled epic. B-movies make me laugh, and I’m happy to consume them within the commercial framework of my TV subscription, even though I would not buy a boxed copy of them, or even watch them all the way through. Games can absolutely explore such territory too.

Share this post: These icons link to social bookmarking sites where readers can share and discover new web pages.
  • Digg
  • N4G
  • StumbleUpon
  • del.icio.us
  • Mixx
  • Google
  • blogmarks
  • Slashdot
  • Reddit

8 Responses to “My take on the B-game debate”

  1. Damien Guard Says:
    April 20th, 2009 at 8:19 pm

    You are only allowed to use a subset of Apple’s API’s and there are other restrictions such as no background tasks…

    [)amien

  2. Paul Evans Says:
    April 20th, 2009 at 8:45 pm

    I think it is a tiny bit unfair declaring Xna Community Games a failure when it has only been going for a little while. Heck the new dash hasn’t even been around very long!

    This is your blog and I respect that you do prefer an open source tool-chain etc, but heck I started programming in proprietary Basic languages on the various 8 and 16 bit platforms. Though of course C++ etc will be the way for cross platform development for a business or someone that has learned computer science for a while, there is also no harm in giving someone a less daunting language to develop games and get published in a way that connected 360s across the world and make a little money… or just mess around and deploy on to a console and see your own stuff on the telly.

    I suppose I just see room for great engines like Ogre and tools like Xna Game Studio for creating all kinds of independent content.

  3. Kevin Bjorke Says:
    April 20th, 2009 at 9:46 pm

    B movies were able to find markets because the theatres were finally able to accept them. After “United States v. Paramount Pictures, Inc.” in 1948, an indie producer could get their films out to an audience. Similarly, the Big Three console companies have had a firm throat grip on what sort of game they’ll certify. The iPhone is a new challenger. The PC remains a challenger. But will it be enough, or will we always be constrained by the distributors?

  4. Steve Says:
    April 21st, 2009 at 9:28 am

    @Damien: a subset of Apple’s APIs perhaps, but I can use all the same tools & libraries I usually do on a native platform. So yeah there are some restrictions, but it’s not a completely different world.

    @Paul: I wasn’t saying XNA is a failure, I said it “hasn’t worked that well so far” – I think that’s a fair assessment. That’s not ruling out it working better in the future. But still, I think the inherent technical divide between XNA and “real” game development is a hurdle that inherently makes it less effective, and consigns it very much to a hobbyist demographic. Now if that’s the only target, then it’s a success – but the message I got was that XNA was being marketed to indie developers too, and in that respect it’s not working – no commercial team with any sense would target XNA based on the track record so far. What makes it worse is that there is no smooth technological transfer to XNA for existing games because it forces the use of different tech (.Net), meaning going in either direction means starting again in many respects, so indies can’t even do a quick & cheap port to XNA just to experiment (like they can on iPhone for example). So right now, I see it as something I might recommend to kids to learn with, but not anyone looking to migrate to commercial development in the relatively near future.

    @Kevin: agreed – I’d like to think that the natural order is open creativity, and that situations where distribution is constrained is a temporary, local minima resulting from abnormal conditions (such as technical limitations leading to console hardware manufacturers ruling over an industry which is actually driven by content, not hardware). We’ll see.

  5. Paul Evans Says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 9:24 am

    @Steve fair points – from the tone I took that you had completely written it off :-) Any indy would have to factor everything you said in to risk analysis when choosing their platform against the skills they have and what is available.

  6. Falagard Says:
    April 24th, 2009 at 1:51 pm

    I think Earth Defense Force 2017 is the definition of a fun B game. Shoot giant insects, destroy buildings. Relatively poor graphics for a modern game, yet it’s fun.

  7. Damien Guard Says:
    May 13th, 2009 at 7:32 am

    Same basic toolset but no GC, sandboxed… It’s not as peachy as you imagine :p

    [)

  8. Steve Says:
    May 13th, 2009 at 9:52 am

    I’m actually glad it doesn’t have GC – who want’s that in a game anyway?

    Anyway, my main issue is that I can use the same tools, language & libs. That’s a big deal in my book, I *hate* being forced to use something different to what I would use on every other platform – I want to maximise my investment, not be forced to rewrite. The sandboxing isn’t a huge deal, most (good) libs accept inputs / outputs via proxies or memory buffers anyway.

Leave a Reply