Will Portal change the game industry?

by Scott Jon Siegel { Feb 4th 2008 at 8:00AM }

Is shorter really sweeter? If Portal's success is any indication, then most definitely. Over at GIgaOM, Wagner James Au is wondering if the 2007 game of the year may signal a change in perspective for the video game industry as whole.

Specifically, Au looks at the business side of Portal, and reasons that the game's profit margin must have been incredibly high, given its short development cycle and genesis as a DigiPen student project.

Ideally, Au sees Portal setting an exciting new industry precedent: small, low-budget mainstream games with short development cycles, taking risks that the multi-million dollar titles literally can't afford to take. If it makes money, and appeals to the masses, then there's no feasible reason why this can't happen. We'll keep our fingers crossed for the revolution.

Tags: portal, valve

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

Korova @ Feb 4th 2008 8:07AM

Maximum fun in minimum time - sounds good to me.

Liam @ Feb 4th 2008 8:27AM

Exactly; not everyone has the times for 50+ hour epics these days.

OTAM @ Feb 4th 2008 6:45PM

Not to me. Some of us didn't chose to have children and/or office jobs and like our 40 hour games (especially when they cost $60 a pop).

t_m @ Feb 5th 2008 2:04AM

Darn right.. it wasn't until i got a job, fiancee, etc.. that i realised quite how much games DRAG OUT things in needless ways.

I've lost count of the number of great games that I've gotten bored of before I finished them. Or games that would have been great if they didn't make you repeat sections hundreds of times, go on massive time filling journeys for no reason, or try and drag it out with annoying random battles or some such annoyance.

I want 6 hour games coming out in regular episodes. I want decent content, not repetition and filler.

Ally @ Feb 4th 2008 8:10AM

Short games are just as fun as long games, its short games selling for £50 thats the problem.

FOXHOUND @ Feb 4th 2008 8:20AM

Well, that... and I fear they might go MOTORSTORM with it and throw a shiz'load of DLC that should've been in the game to begin with. Not that I'm against DLC... but that game in particular would've been fine with all of that on the disc originally. And goddamnit, what's with the lack of offline multiplayer!?

B1gC72 - PSN: KillaKornbread @ Feb 4th 2008 10:46AM

dude have you ever played Motorstorm? thats a bad example for what your saying. it's a very complete game from the get go that they continued to add more stuff to. i think the approach of Motorstorm should be an example for the whole industry. i think a better example for what your talking about is that horse armor fiasco. now that is ridiculous.

TrojanGuy @ Feb 4th 2008 2:01PM

Exactly! I don't mind a short game as long as it's fun and I'm not paying $60 for it. I bought Orange Box because of all of the games, but there's no way I would've paid that much for just Portal.

Obie @ Feb 4th 2008 8:23AM

A game needs to be just as long as to deliver an optimal experience. Portal and COD4 prove this and I don't mind.

Liam @ Feb 4th 2008 8:26AM

I hope so. All the lessons that portal gives are ones that help gaming continue to shed its perception as a geeky niche.

Blazur @ Feb 4th 2008 8:59AM

I hope it doesn't. Any game that can be beat in 3 hours or less is not worth spending full price on. Save those games for renting.

Portal was a fun game, but the fact that it was so short is exactly what's keeping me from giving it so much praise. I'm all for casual games that you can just pick up and play, but portal gets boring so quickly with its lack of maps.

mr mobius @ Feb 4th 2008 12:30PM

A compromise could be to test the water for new IPs by selling them for $25 and basically have it a shorter game of 15 hours. If that game sells well then the sequel can be full blown out 40-50 hour adventure. If the game fails then there is less lost by the game company. Its win-win. The game companies have less risk and we hopefully get more new ips each year.

James @ Feb 4th 2008 9:02AM

All depends on the price. I love Portal but I'd never spend more than £5 on it individually.

But no I prefer longer games like Galaxy, Zeldas, FF etc.

FrankTheCrank @ Feb 4th 2008 9:11AM

I hope the F*CK it does.

Portal has been a refreshing escape from these shooters that just seem to pile up like shovelware.

Everyone and their grandmother is doing a shooter. Everybody wants to be the next Halo, everybody wants to be the next COD....Don't get me wrong, these two games are excellent in their execution. But, if games are an art form then they must evolve or they shall perish in a sea of clone games.

If any game raised the bar of excellence and innovation, Portal was it.

Bravo to Valve for taking a chance.

dan stabbingworth @ Feb 4th 2008 10:23AM

Prepare for 8000 EA Portal clones.

Innovation is for teh l00zers.

32_Footsteps @ Feb 4th 2008 9:18AM

Here's a question, though - how much of Portal's development time can be accounted for by the student project? When you account for that, it might be that the game's development time was a bit longer than initially assumed.

Geist @ Feb 4th 2008 10:42AM

Honestly, except for the concept itself, I don't think any time can be attributed to the student project. Valve just went "Hey, that's interesting," and starting ground-up with everything.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 4th 2008 11:54AM

Portal was rebuilt using the source engine, but the student project was for school, and was executed to completion.

upz @ Feb 4th 2008 4:08PM

Here's something to consider. Portal's engine was already existant, which decreased both development time and development cost. It was profitable because Valve already owned an engine with reasonably up-to-date graphics capabilities with which to create the game (not to mention being packed with Orange Box, sweetening the deal). I can't imagine licensing Unreal Engine 3 (or writing an engine from scratch) just to create a three hour game would be nearly as lucrative.

shi @ Feb 4th 2008 9:21AM

ever heard of the independent gaming scene? you know, where indie developers work under very little to no budget producing varied lengths of gameplays? or are we just big on major established publishers to acknowledge their existence?

James @ Feb 4th 2008 11:11AM

The latter. Don't expect the unwashing hordes to care about indie gaming despite the most creative titles coming from there.

Todd @ Feb 4th 2008 9:24AM

Isn't that what services like Xbox LIVE were supposed to promote? Great games that are shorter that don't cost $60. Maybe Portal's success will finally put more pressure on MS to remove the 150 MB Arcade limit so smaller studios can easily distribute games like Portal.

'Cause let's face it, without 4 other games on the disc, games like Portal can't be sold on store shelves.

Farseer (GDI) @ Feb 4th 2008 11:27AM

I agree totally. The 150MB limit hamstrings digital distribution of more graphics- and time-intensive independent games.

Granted, Portal came packaged with many other games, so the purchase of The Orange Box was an easy choice. If portal (and other games like it) were available as a $10-15 download, I'd be happy to buy them, and I'm sure that I'm not alone.

Bluebrake @ Feb 4th 2008 1:44PM

I could get behind that. There are a few games like that on the horizon for XBL and PSN, and it seems to be the direction Wiiware is going.

I'm happy with shorter games as long as they're $20 like Portal and not $60 like Heavenly Sword.

ThornedVenom @ Feb 4th 2008 9:45AM

It won't for now, because it requires a certain genius to pull it off.

But it could inspire a whole new generation of seemingly simplified games, with a deep complex structure to unravel.

buzzbean @ Feb 4th 2008 9:54AM

While portal as a concept may be new, lower budget creative games are not. Look at flow, everyday shooter, etc. (I only have a PS3 but am sure Xbox has many of these types of games as well.) There will always be a place for the big budget, guaranteed block busters, FF, Halo, etc. While it is nice to see portal get some press, all winning game of the year will do is make sure that a flood of indie/different games will be released, some of which will be spectacular, and many will suck A$$.

RabbidMickeyMouse @ Feb 4th 2008 10:05AM

We have to consider that Valve made this game, not your normal indie company.

MagusDF @ Feb 4th 2008 10:36AM

Not that I mind that being a sign of things to come.
But had it not been a part of the Orange Box and had it not been VALVE that released it. Do you realy think that portal would still be as big of a hit?

Geist @ Feb 4th 2008 10:45AM

Perhaps, but only with marketing. I'd been looking forward to it for a long time and would've purchased it (at a reasonable price) if it had been a separate game or not.

B1gC72 - PSN: KillaKornbread @ Feb 4th 2008 10:49AM

i would be perfectly fine with this unless devs start pumping out low budget crap at the regular $50-$60 price. short, low budget, high quality games would be great for like $30-$40.

Crono (NDF - Knight of the Old School) @ Feb 4th 2008 11:56AM

more like 15-20. Portal is an excellent game, but if I'd paid 30-40 dollars for it, I'd have felt cheated. As it was, I got it in the Orange box for great value.

Bucket @ Feb 4th 2008 11:01AM

Sure, you can make it shorter. Whatever. Just don't forget the OTHER thing that makes Portal different from other shooters: innovative gameplay that has enough possibility to keep people coming back.

Poisoned Al @ Feb 4th 2008 11:19AM

This will only work if:

* The sort game will have to be roller coaster of orgasmic joy from beginning to end. A 2-3 hour game should not have one ounce of filler or lack polish becuase there's no excuse.

* It's ether cheap or bundled with other games.

* It has to be original. Nobody is going to give a toss about another FPS, let alone a short one.

* Otherwise take an existing format and make it mind-blowingly good.

t_m @ Feb 5th 2008 4:12AM

I'm not sure it has to be innovative.

THe HL2 episodes aren't hugely innovative in themselves.. but the fact they are put into small, concentrated pieces means that they have a lot less filler and are pretty satisfying.

Episodic content hasn't worked out as i'd hoped.. but i think the HL2 episodes work great as small, self contained games.

I still think they are overprices individually though. I HUGELY support shorter, more focussed games with less filler.. but it has to be fairly priced.

Batzarro @ Feb 4th 2008 11:35AM

Games are getting more expensive. I sure as hell ain't gonna pay 60$+ for some short-ass experience. It worked for Portal because it was part of a pretty big pack-in.

dispatchevent @ Feb 4th 2008 11:40AM

No, short low-budget titles sound to me like shovel-ware. Not to say Portal is shovel-ware, I think it's the greatest game of 2007, but then again I haven't played Bioshock yet.

I don't trust any company other than a handful such as Valve and Blizzard, to make a short AUD$30 game so brimming with quality gameplay and story elements that I would have gladly have spent AUD$80 on.

why not the LS2LS7? @ Feb 4th 2008 11:42AM

No Portal won't change the game industry, at least not in a good way. Portal is an excellent game which packs a ton of fun in a short period by being original and creative. The industry as a whole doesn't know how to original and creative consistently. So, the industry goes with formulaic and bullshots instead.

And I can't see that changing. You can't put creative on a schedule, so the industry can't really build games around it.

I also don't think shorter is always better, look at Rez. It could use a lot more levels, especially since 5 of the 6 are nearly identical to each other anyway.

t_m @ Feb 5th 2008 9:11AM

if 5 of the 6 levels are identical, how would another 10 identical levels make it a better game?

This is the insanity (not you) that is so infuriating about the games industry. Developers come up with a great game (eg Okami) which is great fun to play... and then seem to feel the need to justify it's existence by making you play it over and over to the point of boredom.

Movies don't have a cool scene, and then repeat it 20 times just to make the movie longer. (well, ones like the matrix and pirates sequels do... which is why they would have been way better if they had been edited down into something better paced, more focussed and tighter).

The number of games I can think of that would have been imroved by adding 50% to their length is, er.. well actually I can't name any off hand.

the number that would have been improved by cutting 50% off the length is pretty much uncountable.

JakubK666 @ Feb 4th 2008 12:36PM

The thing that I really hate about Portal is that as much of fun as it is, it doesn't deserve a GOTY.

The Orange Box does an its' bastard child has stolen it!

Raikage (Wii FC 5508 0487 4434 0992) @ Feb 4th 2008 1:24PM

Don't know about you guys, but I'd pay $50 for Portal...

Rususeruru @ Feb 4th 2008 2:35PM

No, Portal won't change the industry.

Roxinos @ Feb 4th 2008 3:14PM

I think one of the major problems with Portal was that it was far too short. That's mainly due to its brilliance, we all craved more of it, but it was still short. And as long as a game can provide originality without becoming repetitive (which is a reason I'm glad Portal was as long as it was, I could not imagine going through 20+ hours of levels; or even 10) then the longer the better.

Michael @ Feb 4th 2008 3:37PM

http://www.magicalwasteland.com/2008/02/making_claims_with_absolutely.htm

Scott Jon Siegel @ Feb 4th 2008 4:44PM

Hmm, there's enough there to chew on that I think it might best to reply on your blog, rather than here. I believe my comment is "in moderation."

V1L3 @ Feb 4th 2008 5:34PM

Portal and REZ too short? By what standards?

Are all movies 2.5 hours long? What about short films?

Not all TV shows are an hour long. Many are half that, and are better for it.

Portal and REZ are perfect examples of games that were the perfect length for what they were. If they were longer, you'd only be diluting the experience. The puzzles would get samey, the dialogue would wear out its welcome. You could take the best film in the world, extend it by an hour and completely RUIN it.

I think gamers put far too much emphasis on play time, and it's an attitude that has to change. It's easy to make a game that takes 20+ hours to beat; it's far harder to make a game where you're enjoying each and every one of those hours as much as you did playing Portal.

Pacing is an extremely important thing for movies and music, and I think the more talented developers are beginning to realise that it's true for games as well.

Portal isn't going to "change the industry," if you mean that the majority of games will go with this shorter length/lower cost mentality, but it's possible that it could begin to happen more often, and especially with downloadable content.

That said, this argument is only coming out because of Portal's huge and sudden popularity. Valve had this idea years ago when it started work on Half Life Episode 1. And, aside from the huge waits, I think it's been a success.

Demaar @ Feb 4th 2008 10:51PM

Portal was great, but it wasn't the only reason I bought The Orange Box. Unless this means developers or publishers or whoever are going to start shipping smaller games in compilations, then I don't see really short games becoming a trend at all... at least not without a price cut. Also, Portal was just an amazing game. You can't pull that off with any ol' crap.