08.6

INTERACTIVE ENTERTAINMENT DESIGN Volume 9, Number 4, April 1996 Interactive Entertainment Design 5251 Sierra Road San Jose, CA 95132 published six times/year, $36 year, $50 outside US (((We now conclude Mr Crawford's essay on the decline of computer gaming, "Computer Games Are Dead.".))) Howcum we're still kicking? It would be easy to dismiss my apocalyptic preaching with the simple observation that the industry is financially healthy. The hairshirts who point with quavering fingers at our iniquity, threatening hellfire and brimstone, may be at least partially right about the iniquity, but so far we seem to have been doing enough things right that the hellfire and brimstone are on hold. So perhaps we should ignore crazy hairshirts like Chris Crawford. It's certainly true that the computer games industry has successfully escaped damnation for quite some time now. In many ways, the situation is similar to the stock market, which just keeps rising and rising in blithe disregard for the predictions of financial experts who insist that it must come down sooner or later. The financial papers talk about the Dow defying gravity, and nobody seems to understand what's happening. The big difference, of course, is that canny investors are balancing their portfolios with greater diversification, but the computer games industry just keeps believing in itself. There are three reasons for the apparent levitation of the computer games industry. First is easy money. Because so much money was made by the pioneers, there are plenty of investors willing to pour money into the business. Because everybody sees this as a growth industry, investors are willing to lose money today in order to get a solid market position for the future. So the money pours into our industry, we build million-dollar products that return ten cents on the dollar for their development costs, and we just keep reminding our investors of Myst and Doom. We think that because we're gaining money, we're doing just fine, but in fact much of that income is investment, not earnings. Someday the easy money will dry up, and when it does, we won't look so superhuman. Another factor in our continuing success is the supply of cheap labor. Any other industry would have to pay its creative and technical people huge amounts of money for their services, but in this business there are always eager young talents willing to work for next to nothing to get their big break. There are thousands of people who are working on speculation, and their net contribution to this industry can be valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. This labor acts just like investment, so again the impression is created of a wealthy and successful industry, but in fact it's more like those financial empires assembled by con men who borrow in long chains, making themselves look rich on borrowed money. At some point, a payment comes due that can't be met, and the whole financial "empire" collapses. So it is with our industry. At some point the expectation of easy money will erode, causing some of the opportunists investing their time to write off their investment, depriving companies of valuable cheap labor, further accelerating their decline, which in turn only hastens the first process. A third factor in our faux-success is the false basis of most of our sales. Several years ago I pointed out that we were riding on the backs of the hardware manufacturers, who have performed economic miracles in lowering the price of the personal computer while raising its performance. The ever-improving price/performance ratio of personal computers has enticed an ever-larger segment of the public to take the plunge. Of course, whenever you buy hardware, you might as well get a few games. I believe that the ignorant games purchases of initial computer buyers have been a major component of our industry's financial success in the last five years. The best evidence in support of this belief is the dramatic concentration of sales in a few hit titles. Surely the phenomenal success of Myst cannot be due to any overwhelming superiority of the title == we've all played the game and we all know how good it is. Existing computer owners did not rush out to buy Myst because it's the greatest computer game to come along in years. Instead, it established a solid reputation as a great pretty pictures game, the one for first-time buyers to get in order to show off the wonderful capabilities of their new machines. If my hypothesis be correct, then as the deceleration in sales of home computers expands, we should see a strong decline in the sales of computer games. This issue will make itself clear in a matter of a year or two. If in fact we do see this strong decline, then we will know that we've been living in a fool's paradise, and that the financial success we have enjoyed has little to do with the economic merits of our output. You can't defy gravity forever. We've pulled off a great levitation act for the last five years, but reality will catch up with us and when it does, we'll hit the ground all the harder for our failure to appreciate what's been happening. If there were no other forces at work, we'd be facing the same future that coin-op games and videogames are facing.
 * Dead medium: Computer Games Are Dead (Part 4)**
 * From: ChrisCr@aol.com Chris Crawford**

OTHER FORCES But there are other forces at work, forces that. might save computer gaming: multimedia and the Internet. I will not prognosticate on their separate futures; you've seen more than enough hype on those two subjects already. Instead, I want to focus on the how these two forces will affect computer games. Let's start with multimedia. What is most striking to me about multimedia is the fact that it isn't gaming. That is, multimedia is just another term for interactive entertainment, but there's a clear connotation of differentiation from gaming. We may not know what multimedia really is, but we do know that it isn't gaming. Yes, computer games use CD-ROMs and sound boards and full motion video, just like multimedia products, but we still know that computer games are distinct from multimedia. This distinction implies divergence, and divergence means that multimedia won't save computer gaming. I think that multimedia represents a society-wide rejection of computer games. After all, if everybody thought that computer games represent the path to the future, then what need would there be for an alternative path utilizing the same means? The rapid growth of multimedia represents a broad desire for something other than computer games, something different. Therefore, the progress of multimedia represents not the salvation of computer games, but its bane. The Internet is a different story. This is not an alternative using the same technology, but something quite new. What is exciting about the Internet is that its culture is as yet undefined. Initially a research culture, later a more broadly academic culture, now it is moving out into larger circles of society, and along the way its culture is changing. Because it is so ill-defined, the starry-eyed optimists among us see whatever they wish to see in the Internet. At some point, though, the Internet will crawl into focus; it will not be all things to all people. I don't know what this focal point will be, but let's explore two simplistic alternatives based on a single polarity: let's assume that either the Internet culture will embrace the techie-nerd culture that dominates computer gaming, or it will reject it. Again, this is a simple polarity, but it clarifies our reasoning. Because if the Internet settles down to an on-line manifestation of the techie-nerd universe, then its entertainment will be a clone of the existing techie-nerd world of computer games == in which case computer gaming will not be changed by the Internet. On the other hand, if the Internet becomes populist, mainstream rather than techie-nerd, then conventional computer games will fail on the Internet just as surely as they have failed to penetrate society at large, and the computer gamers will retreat into their own little hobbyist enclave the same way they've done with standalone systems. Either way, we come to the same conclusion: the Internet is not going to change the nature of computer gaming. A dying man can change hospitals, but it won't change the outcome. Some will point to the multi-player aspect of the Internet and argue that this is the revolutionary socializing factor that will change the face of gaming. Until now games have been solitary experiences, attracting asocial nerds and repelling the more socially adept. The Internet will change all that, they say, attracting a new type of player, thereby enabling a whole galaxy of new creative opportunities. There is merit in this argument, but I think it must take a back seat to the larger cultural issues surrounding the use of the Internet. I really don't think that large numbers of people will make their decision to participate in the Internet solely on the basis of the games available there. Ultimately, the Internet will develop a culture, and this overarching culture will dictate the style of games that will be commercially viable. In other words, the availability of fine multi-player games will not attract large numbers of "normal" people to join an otherwise "techie-nerd" culture. If, by my previous argument, the Internet instead becomes a medium for "normal" people, then the multi-player interactive entertainment available will be differentiated from computer gaming, and again we will see the divergence between computer gaming and Internet interactive entertainment in exactly the same manner that multimedia has differentiated itself from computer gaming. What I am saying here is that technology doesn't change people; people change technology. It took nearly a decade for computer games to establish their target market, but that marketplace is now clearly defined, and it's the people == the customers == who dictate the shape of computer gaming. New technologies will not change the customer base. Computer gaming has failed to establish itself as a mass market medium. Instead, the field has become a hobby, and hobbies tend to be insular and resistant to change. I am not suggesting that computer games will drop off the face of the earth. Indeed, they will surely persist with the same durability demonstrated by, say, model railroading, amateur photography, and woodworking. But this generation has dropped the torch in its scramble for quick gain, and has lost its shot at creating a living medium with a bright future. Instead, we have created a hobby, a good and fine thing, to be sure, but nothing approaching the potential that we optimistically contemplated back in the early 80s. As for me, well, I don't give up so easily. I have picked up the torch, brushed it off, and resumed trudging up the now-lonely path, even as the rest of the parade gaily marches down to hell. There are plenty of other people standing around hopefully, potential torchbearers all, each bringing some special talent to the picture. I don't know whether it will emerge from the multimedia people, or the Internet people, or from some other direction, but I do know that we need to start all over and build a new creative community, one dedicated to the construction of a mass medium rather than the exploitation of a technology. I approach this task with optimism and excitement. Over the last year or two, as I have opened my eyes to people outside the traditional computer gaming community, I have discovered a wide array of talented people, bursting with energy and enthusiasm. They're out there, ready to make a revolution. [|Chris Crawford interview]