Short-circuiting innovation and the fatcats that perpetrate it

By J-dawg

First we begin with some Fun Facts- #1 Copyright and Patent laws in the United States were designed around the idea and for the express purpose of encouraging the flourishing of the arts and sciences. This very much includes, though not falling exactly into either category too neatly: Video games!

When we talk about Intellectual Property [IP] here, that's really what we're referring to as a matter of general principle. Particular IPs is stuff we all know, Star Wars (owned by Disney now,) Fortnite (Epic,) and so on. Those are just specific examples of IP.

Fact #2: It wasn't always the case that companies could own Intellectual Property. In fact, that's pretty recent. In the beginning of copyright it belonged to its owner - a flesh-and-blood living person. That meant that for better or worse, they had complete creative control over it. So this had its limitations. It also had some major advantages that should not be overlooked!

What's the deal?

It's a Big Deal! Where to start!? Let's start where we are today. Some people would say this is a sort of Golden Age for video games. It's never been easier to get one, play one, share one, or git gud at one or more. Those are strong points in favor of the status-quo! There is more to this story however. There is a distinction between what is good and what is plenty. It is of this difference that we speak.

What is lacking now a lot of the time it seems is quality. We have endless options for games to play. What ones are worth getting? How much do you really get to enjoy the benefit of a game you buy before it gets boring? How many years can you expect to keep playing it and enjoying it? These aren't all pie-in-the-sky sentiments. The game of Chess is at least a thousand years old. Checkers is even older. Good games last. They "Stand the test of time!"

Now not every game will be a gem that becomes a classic. That's understating it. The fact is though, with so many games out today, chances are relatively few of them will become great legacy playing options. That's OK; that is a part of innovation itself. Not all ideas will succeed. That said the scale of what may be termed waste or actually glut (if you will) in the output of the games industry at present is unbelievable! As an exercise in large-scale employment it is succeeding more and more all the time. (That's a good thing too, work is a fact of life!) As measured by the enjoyability of its products though it is more complex.

Let's talk about Product Design.

Nowadays a high degree of polish/gloss is expected in games. As is crisp sound. Those things are still new to gaming. Until as recently as the early 2000's not every game delivered something like that. It only really came about as a result of two things: First-person Shooters and Real-time Strategy. (We'll name names and explore that more in another article.) In the beginning graphics were optional. Text games started video gaming. One. Two, there was no sound. Then when there was a little later, it was beeps and boops and basic noises, not anything like what we have now.

Why bring that up? Because it was seen to be that games weren't about those things (at first.) It wasn't how they looked. It was how they made you feel. It wasn't what they sounded like (which was like a robot at best,) but how good they sounded to you as you thought about them and about playing them in your head. (Invoking something called imagination.) The actual game was something else: An experience transmitted electronically. It was about the idea. Quite frankly- it was a lot more like books.

Games, good games, had character (and sometimes characters!) Had content - not just imagery, music or sound. Those were - and are - embellishments. They are standard fare for modern games. What is lost however is the creative center of games. Just because it looks and sounds slick doesn't mean you can do much with it (just like movies in that respect!) Trends now favor grindfests and over-the-top music, cinematics, and audio effects. The dressing that used to be the cherry-on-top turns out to be most of the cake! Though some games do manage both, they are fewer and farther between to the individual consumer. Let's call that trend Games Inflation.

Why is that bad?

It's bad two ways. One, in what it represents: It means that while getting-to-game has always been a little bit of a struggle (arcade was too far away, parents wouldn't let you console play, No More Quarters, etc) now it's not only that, but a tough time figuring out if there will be any video games worth playing as time goes on. Just because they're new doesn't mean they're actually good or work right or are fun to play. Just because the may get good ratings and reviews online doesn't necessarily mean they're really the right game for you, or really what you're interested in.

Two: It plays out the players eventually. Though it may seem like games are infinite today, and their price and easy access online makes them endless, there is a limit to how much time or money people want to spend on something that is kinda fun but not really too interesting ultimately. Something that passes the time but doesn't really 'get' them or that they care too much about. Games that just amuse but fail to entertain or provide enduring play-experience(s) are selling us all short. Even if it's not a replayable type of game, what about it is memorable? Like good art does, did playing it move you as an experience? If it didn't just eliminate boredom but prompted fun, that is a game. Otherwise it is more of an Electronic Amusement.

Sidebar- Amusements, like the parks that are named for them, are fleeting spectacles. You go to them, you may engage while there but ultimately you or they leave. Amusements are temporary. Games, real games, can be forever. This is where the problem with what we will term Games Inflation comes in. As amusement-type titles increase in number, durable & persuasive games (though always fewer in number) get progressively more drowned out. It all blends together and it becomes harder and harder to know if any game is worth spending money on basically. This is a problem for everyone long-term. Disenchantment with and disillusionment from gaming won't be that far behind (same being true of a fair or carnival, or even for some permanent amusement parks.)

It pays to more than engage your customers but to truly involve them, IF you have something to truly offer them.

So what does this have to do with fatcats?

It has everything to do with fatcats. Who are fatcats? They are people involved in gaming, the games industry, who may not particularly care about video games or the experiences of players. Even if they do care they may simply not know how to make a good video game or really know what it feels like to fall in love with a game! Their involvement does not help the creative process. Their contributions only modestly benefit the technical part of making games. Fatcats get in the way while only helping out in a peripheral fashion.

They have many names. Titles. They're not bad people just because they're not the ones most responsible for making it awesome. They are however not first and foremost about good games. They may help get them to that point because of the other things they want: Status, recognition, profit. Those aren't bad things to have. (Don't get us wrong.) It's just that if those things are getting in the way of making decent software, ya and they gotta go! Games are about creativity and interactivity. Too much lately we're only getting the latter, if that. (More on E-Sport some other time!)

Fatcats slurp up the creme while players live on gruel. You don't have to hate 'em or even dislike the paltry games they're offering to know we can do better! What you may not know is that you should stand up and demand it, too!

Continued in Part 2

Copyright GBAMFS 2020