Today’s video game industry has ballooned into a mammoth $66 billion business, and one of its fastest growing segment is social networking games. From $3.2 billion in 2011, games like Farmville and Gardens of Time have grown into $4.5 billion in 2012. That could mean that social networking games can outperform retail sales as early as next year if the current trend continues. An interesting study conducted in National Cheng Kung University in China shows the reason why people around the world seem to adapt social networking game easily after it was introduced just a few years ago.
New report from Skillsearch found that 22% of those surveyed had been laid off within the past 12 months.
It's a step forward for Stop Killing Games.
The Callisto Protocol director thinks the solution involves the right people, the right timing, and perhaps a little bit of AI
I don't agree with that. I WISH I could agree with that. But buying habits and customer opinions prove otherwise
We've seen developers in the AAA space try new things and ideas. More often than not, the customers aren't willing to give things a chance, or not enough people buy into the project for it to grow.
Creativity works better in the indie space because the budgets, pressures, and expectations aren't the same.
it's a nice idea and it worked during the PS2/PS3-era when AAA didn't cost hundreds of millions of dollars. smaller budgets and shorter development time left room for more creativity and more risk. a game didn't need to sell 4 million+ copies to break even. things are different now.
This is the guy who bragged about crunching his staff and having them work through the night. Crunch culture has lost more talent and done more damage to the industry than any other factor. Screw him.
An excellent article and it rings true, it's also why the Wii took off so fast: because it showed an ease of game playing, which is why most people didn't game, because they don't have the reflex or the time to learn a game. Most gamers have the "hunting" gene and some are "loners" or "watchers" who warn people of danger from a distance. Others are in-your-face aggro types. That's also why the Assault rifle + Shotgun + Sniper rifle are always stables in shooters.
How are some of them even considered games though. "buy energy to do this, buy this to do that" its a microtransaction game most of the time.
I don't exactly have an issue with casual games, because at least you are having mindless fun with no purpose. However social games, and phone games, its like really? you touched something that has user interaction at the bare minimum, does the thinking for you because you are not that bright, or pay to go anywhere in a game (which is once again pretty much handed to you once you let them nickel and dime you)
I said this on TechSpy, I draw here and there but I don't call myself an artist. Why? Because I have respect for the hobby. I take pictures, but Im not a photographer. You might touch social games, but your not a gamer.
I tend to think that even social gamers don't call themselves gamers as the ones that i have encountered and asked usually tell me they only play when they have time to kill at work or waiting for the bus or their car, etc. They are not the type that looks forward to the next installment of said game. They really don't care about who made their game or if another developer will take it over.
Gamers on the other hand, actually make time to play their game(s). They like a good story to go along with it and care about sound and graphics in their game...they are fulfilled when the time they spent on their game was well spent and who makes their game.
Sidenote- to this day i have yet to play angry birds or plants vs. Zombies... I guess the old school gamer in me won't let me.