The Better Quality Control

The games industry seems to have a knack at ‘asterisking’ certain old sayings. “Any publicity is good publicity*. *This doesn’t always apply for the video games industry.” Another ideal like “less is more” is another one that’s seemed to be slowly eroding in truthfulness (only for the games industry) when I began considering it as an old-guard mentality for content curation. Thanks to digital distribution opening up new ways of purchasing games, the easy access of free or cheap game development tools, the constant stream of news regarding AAA developers jumping ship to get into the indie scene, and the deluge of new prospects wanting to get in the market, there really hasn’t been this many games released in all of the medium's history. Perhaps the closest example would probably be…the games market around the 1980’s (DUN DUN DUN). And the glut of new content has put several content holders into a bit of a bind: how do they handle what does and what doesn’t make it on their storefront?

In the past, most corporate endeavors of selecting X or Y title was typically a cold numbers-crunching process of trying to fill out some initiative. At times, there were ambitious ideas shown to cultivate a stronger indie developer base, like Microsoft’s XNA and its updates during the past decade (1); but even then, it’s easy to notice the limited amount of slots XBLA, PSN, etc. used to have—and still seem to have from my perspective—was more of a line-straddling affair of genuine indie interest while also serving their image above that. Now, those suits seem to be...less pompous because of how quickly a quirky hit can be such a financial home run. The Andriod and iOS stores have set the bar quite low in their app/game approval process and that's probably considered a lost cause by some. Valve's Steam Store has had to deal with a deluge of games, early access or otherwise, since the launch of Greenlight a couple of years ago. This has caused a very vocal group of gamers to express worry about this steadily-growing trickle of new games threatening to completely flood Steam altogether. Some feel overwhelmed by the glut of new games on there already.

Effectively, this has resulted in demands for better quality control management of ‘proper’ games to buy instead of having the current more-open system. To a degree, I can understand why such a plea towards this kind of action has taken place and understand how this outlook may look nice for the consumer. But the more I think about it the less I’m convinced in believing Steam or other popular online storefronts mentioned above should be instituting that method of content curation.

Establishing a sort of curative process for something like an art gallery makes sense. Since the square footage of floor space and/or wall space is finite, a careful art of filtering is done in order to build up a specific collection of paintings, sculptures, etc. and effectively make a statement about both the pieces that are and are not included in said collection. It’s a useful way to display a specific set of pieces for either a public or personal collector in this sort of context too. But from the outside looking in at the situation of what Steam and its theoretically infinite amount of shelf space can contain, I honestly find the reasoning for that same kind of “curative persistence” here just so someone has the security blanket of not making a regretful purchase or because a flood of specific titles might not be of any useful utility for them to be rather tenuous.

In the long run, I’m just not convinced that such backtracking in policies instead of a more democratized system is the better deal for every party in the long run. That may sound strange to see in me believing I’m still acknowledging the consumer considering what’s previously stated, but I do genuinely believe greater consumer satisfaction in the industry could improve if storefronts didn’t and wouldn’t act like such closed systems for developers.

There’s no question about it: the difficulty in being discovered because of this deluge of new digital content releasing is only increasing more and more and more. I understand and totally empathize with that yearning to put money down on some new titles while also being frustrated in knowing so little about them. Changes must be made. Whether its changes like wrestling control away from developers who've abused their power in the game's forums to hide complaints or some kind of system established for refunds, there’s several great ways in ensuring these online storefronts can improve their services. What these measures shouldn’t entail however is the notion of putting a clampdown on game releases altogether.

Those couple of skin-deep solutions mentioned have been regurgitated over and over about improving the storefront in the past. The real question is: how do we wade through this mess to find the few sparkling gems, or even decent games, amidst the plethora of trash?

Well...I see the most beneficial solution for everyone would a more informed public via critics, writers, and gamers who want to talk about those games. I'm flabbergasted to see some of the loudest voices in game reviewing actually advocating for more stringent filtering on the likes of steam, sometimes assuming the mantle of Intellectual Property Lawyer along with it. From certain videos rallying against games like Earth: Year 2066 or Air Control, there’s been a quick torches-and-pitchforks reaction by prolific members against the very idea of such titles being in the same vicinity as Half-Life 2 or other great games. But just think about it for a moment: people calling for less of the very thing that gives them job security. It’s not enough to make hilarious videos commenting on how trashy the game is and getting hits off it, said despicable game must also be outright banned from the storefront altogether. I mean, today’s problem of uncertainty in what consumers should purchase can be totally ameliorated with a multitude of writers and lets-players discussing and/or showing those unknown titles that capture someone’s interest.

Then what’s the problem?

Initially, I was only going to focus on popularity; however, recent leaks do shed some more unsettling light on certain decision-making processes regarding indie game coverage from a specific caste of people. Nevertheless, I still think the focal point would still be centered on the viability of an indie game reviewing center in today’s marketplace. The sad fact of the matter is: those who want to make a living off critiquing games have to contribute a large part of their energy on AAA games. It’s already not an easy field to get into due to how many want games writing to become more than just a hobby and clicks are still the best means of revenue, lest they get sizable support from Patreon. There’s room for some arcade-level releases across most sites, but it’s often relegated to the top-tier indie stuff that can get a momentary front spot on metacritic. What we’re left with is numerous titles hitting online storefronts and very few, possibly none, of the super-popular gaming sites that make their own reviews are able to provide general consumer advice or even artistic evaluation of said products due to the ouroboros of the AAA hype machine still in a vicious cycle between publishers, game writers, and the community.

By no means does this observation somehow make me in the clear either. My review list is filled with a lot of standard $60 titles which certainly caused me to miss out on other suprises similar to Element4l or Contrast. And since a heightened amount of disclosure seems to have become a trend now: it’s fair of me to admit I opted out of getting involved in IndieMonth, in turn offloading more work to a smaller group of writers. Due to being enthusiastic in continuing my writing for seventh-gen Naughty Dog titles and my laptop being on the fritz (which I’m still waiting on getting repaired), I simply didn’t think it was possible to accomplish. Despite that, I still tried to take a last-second opportunity in covering Octodad but that didn’t pan out, which I think was for the better. Even IF I had the free time and intention of game reviewing as a living I probably wouldn’t be able to avoid considering whether or not there would be much of a market to sustain myself in evaluating a group of smaller and more thoughtful titles.

With the myriad of games to choose from, between early access, AAA, and everything in between, a reviewer’s role is now able to be more adaptive as well. Just as some in the industry has shirked away more and more from the heavier hand of publisher influence (if certain averages of recent high-profile games is anything to consider) so too do reviewers bend less towards being "hype crankers" and more as sentinels of interesting designs and/or storytelling methods scattered across all walks of games. The result effectively puts writers, (typically) gamers like you and me, at the task of being the filters that consumers look towards rather than corporate suits who’d be more privy to following some sort of bottom line.

Being shocked at the great influx of games on steam, I can understand the frustration with seeing a plethora of games that look like trash engulfing such a huge part of the marketplace. And for those who have brought up complaints about filtering out shovelware, I think there’s one question that needs to be considered. Which of these sounds like the better method of content curation: giving that sort of control to suits like Valve, whose policies have already resulted in at least one game removed from Greenlight due to it being “erotic material” (2) or to a surfeit of different writers and lets-players, each having their own biases and predispositions about what makes a game valuable, yet who only have the power to encourage rather than outright restrict what kinds of titles to purchase?

Links:

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wik...

2. http://www.tomshardware.com...