Recent trends in the games industry have rightly sparked discussions about its future direction. While these issues may initially seem disparate, they raise a common question: How can we build a system where artistic vision and quality thrive alongside financial stability?
Manifestations
Unfinished Games
One major issue, especially in the “AAA” scene, has been games releasing in a state of questionable quality - suffering from performance issues, glitches, and balancing problems. The “day-one patch” has become a well-established phenomenon, often followed by months of updates before the game reaches an “acceptable” quality that better matches the creative vision.
This situation often involves a struggle between:
- Developers: Who consider the creative vision paramount but require funding to employ their teams.
- Publishers/Investors: Who provide capital in return for profit, often wanting quick returns on investment.
Many games are undeniably works of art, evoking strong emotions through storytelling (like ‘A Short Hike’ or ‘Outer Wilds’) or providing satisfying challenges (such as ‘Returnal’ or ‘Demon’s Souls’). Creating art takes time, and the creative process is inherently spontaneous, unpredictable, and iterative. Giving this process the time it needs often results in art that resonates with more people.
The Content Conundrum
There’s been a push for more and more “content” in games, with studios often aiming for tens to over a hundred hours of gameplay. This can lead to repeated and lower-quality content, turning the game into a grind. While some games, like ‘The Witcher 3’ and ‘The Legend of Zelda: Breath of the Wild’, have successfully created content-rich experiences, they are exceptions rather than the rule.
This push for content may be due to genuine high ambitions, feature creep inherent to the creative process, or pressure from investors. To me, the key is to prioritise creating an engaging, fun experience over simply “creating content.”
The Live Service Paradigm
Following the massive financial successes of games like Fortnite, Call of Duty: Warzone, and Apex Legends, Free-to-Play (F2P) Games as a Service (GaaS) have taken over the market. These games promise free, unlimited content with regular updates, monetised primarily through microtransactions.
This trend has led to a shift in investment patterns, with investors seemingly less likely to back the development of complete, particularly single-player, experiences. From a business perspective, this risk-averse behaviour is understandable, especially given the recent astronomical profits of some F2P games. However, from an enthusiast’s perspective, it raises concerns about games being considered primarily as products to make money, rather than art that enriches lives.
The Human Element
The misalignment of incentives also affects the people behind the games:
- Crunch: Developers often work excessive hours for weeks or months prior to release to ensure a game reaches a certain state. This prioritises short-term profits at the expense of developers’ quality of life. Crunch may naturally be part of the creative process, but it should be minimised nonetheless.
- Studio Closures & Layoffs: Sometimes occurring unexpectedly, these often feel unwarranted and can be seen as a method of cutting costs at the first sign of “failure”. This contributes to high employment volatility in the industry.
Realigning Incentives: Potential Solutions
To address this problem of incentives, we need to explore ways to balance artistic integrity with financial sustainability:
- Embracing Variety in Scope: Not all games have to be the next blockbuster! Instead, let’s celebrate a diverse ecosystem of games, including shorter, more focused experiences and innovative art styles that don’t necessarily require cutting-edge technology.
- Redefining Success: Let’s expand our definition of success beyond just financial metrics to include measures of artistic achievement, player satisfaction, and positive industry impact.
However, game developers and publishers are, ultimately, companies with a commitment to generate returns for investors; profit is a necessity. Therefore, there is no guarantee that even the most well-meaning developers and publishers won’t, in time, resort to attempting to maximise profits.
So, let’s shake up the system…
- Innovative Funding Models: Let’s explore alternative funding sources that provide more flexibility and stability for artistic projects, such as blockchain-based crowdfunding, or public-private partnerships for games with educational or cultural value.
Decentralised Autonomous Organisations
The decentralised science (DeSci) movement, while in its nascent stage, is revolutionising the funding of research. Research is being funded that wouldn’t considered a “safe bet” by conventional funding bodies, nor a potential cash cow by investors. As a result, scientists can earn a living more sustainably, and patients will receive new treatments that wouldn’t otherwise be developed.
Let’s apply the same approach to art. By decentralising the funding of games, there would be no central, profit-maximising entity to affect the developers’ creative vision. Crowdfunding platforms like Kickstarter and Indiegogo have shown the beauty of crowdfunding - and blockchain technology can take this further.
For example, a decentralised autonomous organisation (DAO) would enable the raising of capital - through the purchasing of its token - and capital distribution. Such distribution would be automated - the beauty of blockchain technology - with no need for a middleman like Kickstarter. Kickstarter takes a 5% cut of donations, and 5% more is taken by the payment platform - an effective cut of 10%. Blockchain “gas” fees will moving ever closer to 0% with optimisations and new architectures, meaning developers will have increased profits.
To distribute funds in a pool fairly, quadratic funding (QF) can be used. QF is an algorithm that more heavily weights the number of votes for a particular project than the amount of money donated to each project: this means that funders with the most capital are not the most powerful.
Better yet, streaming quadratic funding (SQF) could provide a more stable source of income for artistic teams. SQF describes a continuous flow of funds - the amount of which being determined according to the QF formula - released at regular intervals. This could provide the financial security that is current lacking in the games industry.
To incentivise contribution, funders could receive royalties - made automatic and reliable by the underlying blockchain technology. Also, some projects may give contributors governance rights to help make decisions about the game, allowing more community-driven development.
The Path Forward
The games industry stands at a crossroads, with the potential to evolve into a beacon of artistic expression and innovation. By realigning our incentives to balance the creation of games as both commerce and art, we can chart a course towards a future where financial success and artistic integrity go hand in hand.
This evolution will require collaboration between developers passionate about their craft and players who value and support games that push the medium forward.
As we move forward, let’s embrace the idea that games can be more than just products – they can be transformative works of art that shape culture and inspire generations to come. To ensure games in development are treated this way, a realignment of incentives is required.