Polarity

Another example includes a major games company CEO being disgusted with EA for not being able to release Superman Returns for consoles when the movie came out. Jeez, so someone actually delayed a movie game to make it good. That’s like the second time in history that that’s ever happened, and gamers are more fortunate to have a better game when it releases. But that comment leaves us wondering again, what is the point? Why release a game before it becomes what it should be, a great game? That particular CEO was apparently really upset about it too, like EA personally defiled his mother’s grave. EA can do it, but they went against the shareholders to make a better game. This is definitely a rare occasion, especially for EA, but it’s refreshing to see someone fight for the quality of a game rather than a release date. And remember, that CEO is the head of a major player making those kinds of decisions, and we are caught in the cross-fire of it all.

Comments like the one just mentioned pit companies against each other for no apparent reason. I thought they were trying to give people fun, so why worry about the other guys? It’s all the same in the end, right?

All of the proceeds of Halo 3 are going to charity. Just kidding, they’re really being used to buy competitors to maintain a monopoly.

Wrong. Companies don’t want you to play the other guy’s wares. Mark Rein will profit more it companies create bigger games because he gets more money from Unreal Engine licensing. If a company is looking to create a small game, they aren’t going to buy Epic’s engine because it would be too expensive for that type of game. But selling the idea that making smaller games is stupid will make sure that Epic turns a profit with their middleware business. Business over pleasure.

Bill Gates would love to release Halo 3 when the PS3 launches (which definitely isn’t going to happen, by the way), but that would put us poor gamers in an annoying spot. We’re going to play Halo 3 at some point Bill, but why does it have to be in direct competition to another source of many people’s joy? Can’t we all just get along?

Another good example of this conundrum is the story of how Shigeru Miyamoto became what he is today. Hiroshi Yamauchi, the former president and still owner of Nintendo, basically needed the right guy to spearhead software development. He saw financial success in Miyamoto, with his wonderful imagination that lightened up kids’ lives.

To this day, Yamauchi has still not played a video game, but he sure knew the right guy to make them. Business, in this example, meant pleasure for a lot of people. No one can deny that Mario and Zelda are some of today’s most popular titles, but lurking behind their success was a balls-to-the-wall businessman that wanted complete control of the industry.

A lot of you probably think me naïve. That business is business, and nothing more. But tell that to all those independent developers out there who don’t do it for the money. They put all their passion and love for games into their work, and all they ask in return is for your approval. This is a viable counter-point because there are thousands of people that call themselves independent developers out there in the world, with games being released as shareware almost daily. They have a very big voice in the video game industry today, and their loud and proud voices tell a different story for the industry.

Stock RPG Maker sprites? Shouldn’t Ledonne have respected the victims enough to steal sprites from Final Fantasy?

Examples of this can be seen with the recent Super Columbine Massacre RPG, which was developed by now uncloaked Danny Ledonne, or “Columbin.” He developed the highly criticized game to create conversation on the horrific tragedy. He did not make this game to make a name for himself as a programmer. He was quoted around the time of the game’s high point of controversy that he isn’t looking to get into game development. He created the game to help others see what the tragedy really meant, and “behind all the pixels is the fact that people really died, including two angry boys who were, at times, very thoughtful, sensitive and intelligent young men.”

This goes above and beyond what we have defined a video game to be in this era, and it’s people like Ledonne that show onlookers that the industry isn’t just made of people looking to become rich. He spent an estimated 200-300 hours to develop a game that saw not one cent of profit. He was looking for something far more gratifying: community discussion and interaction, which is probably the farthest from monetary gain that I can think of.

Also, think of what Dennis Dyack of Silicon Knights has been saying for years now: that video games can and will surpass cinema and books as the dominant form of media, on the artistic side of things. And with games like Eternal Darkness, that future can definitely happen. But will all the other companies follow in Dyack’s footsteps? Probably not, because business runs the show. Even though Eternal Darkness was an achievement in interactive entertainment from many people’s eyes, it sold rather poorly. And that is probably why we won’t see a sequel for a very long time.

In the end, though, we cannot dump the video game industry into one category. We would hope that they only make games to give people a sense of fun and happiness, with maybe some controversy here and there, but the almighty dollar says different. We might get a few gems in the end, but the majority of games released are just to keep the company alive, plain and simple.

Sources include Rocky Mountain News for the Ledonne quote, Smartbomb: The Quest for Art, Entertainment, and Big Bucks in the Videogame Revolution, written by Heather Chaplin and Aaron Ruby for the history lesson, and all the GAF bloggers that helped create this essay with their opinions on the matter.