The change of video games over the years
GameDaily explores the transformation of video games including online play, downloadable games, tech specs, and controller innovations (or lack thereof) in a then versus now fashion. From the retrospect: "What started as a 'cool craze' in the early 80's leading into the 90's has now become one of the most popular sources of entertainment to date, surpassing even television and movies ... [here are] a few examples as to how much the changes have affected us- and what has managed to stay the same in the conversion."Which begs the question: How does the change in video games compare to the movie, music, or even automobile industries? More advancement in terms of entertainment value at the product level? No change? Less? While I wish there was a definitive answer, it's difficult to measure the enjoyment experience as a young gamer compared to older gamers with very different priorities.
But I digress ... the fact of the matter remains that, for whatever reason and despite intensity, games have changed, and they have grown up. But so have the gamers that play them.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Tush @ Oct 6th 2006 3:28PM
" The PlayStation introduced a Dual Shock technology that would feature "rumble", where the controller would shake with certain functions in the game. Not to be outdone, Nintendo released an accessible "Rumble Pak" that got released with StarFox 64."
Nintendo released the "Rumble Pak" before the Dual-Shock came out...
ck @ Oct 6th 2006 3:33PM
"has now become one of the most popular sources of entertainment to date, surpassing even television and movies"
In dollar amount, but not by actual numbers of people. To say that the gaming industry is the biggest entertainment market is a bit of a false truth. The only reason it has surpassed the movie industry is because of the prices of software compared to ticket prices and dvd prices. I'm sorry, until I start seeing older people and more women playing video games along with younger ones, then maybe then this statement would be true.
As far as the article goes, it really does a bad job at getting at the heart of what video games were like back then. Online gaming? That's still in it's infancy...and has been for 10 years. And the technical portion of the article was so small and they didn't cover near enough innovations throughout the 80s and 90s. Overall, the article seemed to be written in 2 hours to make a deadline. I'm not asking for an 80 page essay, but if you're going to cover a retrospective of gaming advancements, please do some more research and give a well-thought out article.
FSK405K @ Oct 6th 2006 3:40PM
"The idea of networkable gaming was just a twinkle in someone's eye until the early 90's, when community gaming through PC's was born. Games such as Doom and Wolfenstein 3-D..." uh, hello. MUD's anyone?
FSK405K @ Oct 6th 2006 3:48PM
I think we're all coming to realize...that article is crapola!
Probot @ Oct 6th 2006 3:54PM
"In dollar amount, but not by actual numbers of people."
Even that isn't really true. In order for video games to make more money than movies, you have to count all possible sources of revenue for video games (hardware sales, software sales, accessory sales, online subscriptions) and then compare that to *only* box office sales. Once you factor in DVD sales, movies are way ahead.
mykie @ Oct 6th 2006 4:03PM
This site tries to install spyware on my system.
Well, at least that's what my Internet Security program is telling me.
jonAgain @ Oct 6th 2006 4:20PM
The PlayStation introduced a Dual Shock technology that would feature "rumble", where the controller would shake with certain functions in the game. Not to be outdone, Nintendo released an accessible "Rumble Pak" that got released with StarFox 64.
This is backwards.
Maybe 10 years from now GameDaily can post a story about how Nintendo didn't want to be outdone by Sony's motion sensing controller so they scrambled and came up with the wii-mote.
Evan @ Oct 6th 2006 4:21PM
I don't know if the video game industry has surpassed television and movies, but they have certainly become like Hollywood... multi-million dollar budgets... sequels and clones instead of original ideas... out of touch with fans...
BANDIT @ Oct 6th 2006 4:32PM
The industry is completely backwards. It needs to mirror the music and television industry. In both the music and video industry there are three main avenues of distribution.
1) Personal Form. Example: small, portable high fidelity form. MP3. DVD. TV. Something that can be picked up and played from anywhere at any time.
2) Subscription form which is further broken down into three sub categories. A. Free ad based QUALITY programs. Sitcoms, and prime time tv on network stations and free radio stations are a good example.
B. basic subscription which give you access to more content, for a subscription price. Basic cable and XM radio are good examples.
C) Out right purchase of content, via CDS, Movies, games etc. Im not sure if the entertainment industry is paying attention but purchase of content is DECLINING while subscription content is claiming at an amzing rate. Look at netflicks and itunes for examples. The game industry needs to get a CLUE
Having used gametap I can say that gaming will take this form in the future. the 360 is the perfect platform for Gametap or a gametap like service which they NEED. If they did they would propell the 360 into the real next generation...
3) Performance of content, This is in music concerts, and in movies theaters. Although ultimately you dont make as much money from these venues they are still NECCESSARY to generate the hype. In the 80s/90s the arcade was the avenue for this, however since you can get similar experiences at home now they have lost steam. Games like DDR were popular in the arcades where they generated incredible sales at the home level. For Video games to advance they need an experience that they cant get at home. Theaters are lossing steam because we are getting closer and closer to movie theaters at home so the need is lost. For game to develop an experience we need to use more 3-dimensional equipment and hands on tech to make experiences that cannot be duplicated easily in an upper middle class home.
Basically the video game industry is stone age compared to other media their view of business dispite that fact that they are one of the most tech dependent industries.
Basically my message is that the majority of the video game industry are either terrible business men or incredibly brillant ones. because ultimately we are all paying more money for less content and experiences.
32_Footsteps @ Oct 6th 2006 4:34PM
One thing to keep in mind when comparing the movie industry to the video game industry - If a game grosses the same as a movie, the movie had five times as many customers, if you go by non-matinee ticket prices in the biggest cities in the country. If you leave the metro areas or start including matinees, I believe the ratio changes to around 7.5:1 customers for movies:video games.
Here's the thing - can we really compare changes in the last 25 years of the video game industry to the last 25 in moviemaking? It seems more apt to compare things to the first 25 years of moviemaking. How much have games advanced compared to that?
jonAgain @ Oct 6th 2006 4:55PM
"Analog control has been tightened down for more precise movement. Push an analog stick ever so slightly in one direction and you have a slower speed."
Yes, this is brand new. Robert Workman is an idiot.
BANDIT @ Oct 6th 2006 5:05PM
It doesnt matter at which stage you compare them at because the consumers are all from the same era, meaning they expect a certain amount of convenice and price thats comparable to the rest of their entertainment. The idea that we should change the comparison is ridiculous. Games have been around longer than music or film/theater the fact that it has become digital now means very little. A game is still a game that people of all ages can enjoy is the game is presented correctly. Any way economies of scale dictate that longer price ranges will increase demand. If the Ps2 were $20 buck I'd likely have 3, in the same way that I have 2 dreamcasts, $15 and $20 respectively. Any the game industry needs a major overhaul and attempting to dispute an overarching problem by chipping at a thin of paint wont make any difference
Sami @ Oct 6th 2006 5:50PM
Games may have changed, but I haven't. I'm still the same person, not, say, me next door neighbor. I think that modern games are boring. It's horribly boring to move around in 3D environments, and everything is so bloated and repetitive and needlessly complicated. I want streamlined interface and accessibility, real sense of being in control of the game characters and fun, new things. I want real games, not 3D animations that you slog through by pressing the analog controller and smashing a few buttons now and then.
RobertP @ Oct 6th 2006 6:11PM
"In late 1994, a company called Catapult introduced a device called the XBand, which was made for both the SNES and Sega Genesis systems. Made up of a cartridge with a built-in modem, this was the first example of network gaming for consoles, although it didn't have the official support of neither Sega nor Nintendo."
Apparently GameDaily didn't read Nintendo Power in 1994 or do any research. Nintendo not only promoted and endorsed X-Band it even gave it away to a lucky winner of it's contest. There is way too much wrong with this article. In fact someone could sit and write another article based upon what is wrong here.
Probot @ Oct 6th 2006 7:54PM
BANDIT,
** TV Model:
The TV model won't work for one basic reason. In the TV industry, we are not the consumers; we are the product. We watch the shows (25% of every episode of any show is advertising) and advertisers pay money for our eyes. TV companies make money on advertising.
I don't want that model for video games. The second I see a full-fledged, commercial in Metal Gear Solid, I'm turning it off and returning it.
** Subscription and renting:
By themselves, Blockbuster, Gamefly, and GameTap are all horrible ideas in the eyes of developers. Publishers get incredibly small amounts from these services and I'd be surprised if developers got anything. Gamers like them because they are cheap and in the case of Gamefly and GameTap, they offer games that aren't sold anymore. The only reason publishers actually comply with GameTap is because retail only stocks the "short tail."
Brick and mortor stores will never be gone. The only change we need is for them to start stocking games for longer and not dropping the price so predictably. That makes it easier for people to simply wait for the game to go down to $20 and then buy it. It's not helping the industry at all.
With that atmosphere at retail, any money the publisher can make on a game that isn't on shelves is seen as a good thing.
Greg Costikyan has a good rant about this:
http://www.costik.com/weblog/2006_09_01_blogchive.html#115830227276213255
Essentially, he says games are not fruit. Their price should not be dependant on their age.
The best online service for games is Xbox Live Arcade or Nintendo's Virtual Console. Each game is sold individually, so money could theoretically go to the publisher, but they are still pretty cheap. And there's essentially no reason to ever stop stocking a game.
** Free games:
Free, quality, ad-supported games exist. Pogo.com, Yahoo Games, Shockwave.com, AddictingGames.com, many more.
Plus, there are hundreds of demoes out there for every type of game. They are free, and essentially, they are ads.
** Performance:
This is where you completely lose me. There will never be anything like arcades again. It's too expensive and there's not enough interest. Virtual Reality is a relic of 80s pop culture fantasy.
** Conclusion:
If you really need a new area for games, we already have it. Online. Not just digital distributions, but actual online multiplayer games, whether it be Halo or WoW. When done right, MMO can work for any genre. The problem with developers is they're stuck on the persistent world idea. We don't *need* that. We need organization and communication with other players.
"we are all paying more money for less content and experiences."
And the day that stops being the case is the day things start to change.
theflyingorc @ Oct 6th 2006 10:24PM
Lots of advances in tech with little maturing of the medium. The average game is a popcorn flick intellect level - it would be nice if some were targeted at those of us who clearly HATE 50 Cent: Bulletproof
David @ Oct 7th 2006 2:27AM
This article is crap!
"When the NES and Sega Master System were introduced in the mid-80's, not many innovations existed with controllers, aside from rapid-fire button functions and the occasional massive joystick release"
Uh, the invention of the d-pad by Nintendo?
"The same goes for the Sega Genesis and SNES pads, although both of them expanded with a few more buttons with proper placement. It was with the following generation, however, that controllers began to take shape with this design"
What the hell does this mean? And perhaps shoulder buttons were a new idea that everyonme has copied since?
"The PlayStation, Nintendo 64, and Sega Saturn featured controllers that supported analog play, enabling gamers to get a better sense of control with their thumb than they would on a tired old D-pad."
Uh - the PS1 and Saturn launched with SNES based pads. Sony and Sega retrospectively added analog AFTER the N64 was released.
"The PlayStation introduced a Dual Shock technology that would feature "rumble", where the controller would shake with certain functions in the game. Not to be outdone, Nintendo released an accessible "Rumble Pak" that got released with StarFox 64."
As others have poined out, Nintendo was first (I think we're noticing a pattern here...)
And that's all from one paragraph!
Was this thing written by an 11 year old? the research, grammar and logic are appalling.
Ninegauger @ Oct 7th 2006 5:33PM
Off the top of my head I know most of that stuff is wrong. Four seconds of research should have corrected all of those mistakes... I'm pretty sure it wasn't just a difference in months either.
The real story is that Sony not to be outdone ripped off both Analog Thumb-sticks and Rumble retroactively changing the Playstation controller which itself is basically a rip-off of an SNES controller.
Sega's analog controller, as far as I know, was little supported but seems to have been developed independently of Nintendo (They didn't copy them) because they were released fairly close in Japan (This controller and the Nintendo 64) and the Saturn Analog controller actually beat the N64 to market in the States (But not Japan).
In terms of Rumble I'm almost positive the Rumble Pak beat the Dual Shock to market in the States at least.
Sony's always been a reactionary company. They're also assholes if you ever hear any of the corporate people talk.