Against New Games
Preamble
Against New Games:
Trans-Generational Manifesto
v0.7
The state of videogames today is abysmal. While the gaming industry has always been dominated by commercial concerns, there still remained room for development teams to express themselves and their love for the medium. This is no longer the case on any meaningful scale. The profit motive has come to dominate in every aspect of game development with publishers routinely participating in hostile, anti-consumer practices and unethical behavior present in every aspect of the industry. The result is a standard of quality so unreliable, and general expectation of consumer exploitation so high, the only historical comparison is the period immediately preceding the Videogame Crash of 1983.
It’s clear, too, that the industry’s degrading view of its consumers extends to the medium of videogames itself. While hobbyists have always demonstrated a deep respect and love for the medium, the industry’s largest publishers make a routine habit of destroying beloved studios and franchises for momentary profits, and regularly employ anti-game practices that limit their ability to be enjoyed in the long term. The short-term perspective of the industry has lead to even flagship titles being treated as throwaways without lasting value, designed with an expected lifespan of a single generation in mind. Their marketing is instilled with this perspective, primarily emphasizing graphical upgrades as the key selling point, despite the fact they’ll become outdated in a few years, while the games themselves remain uninnovative, each generation releasing and re-releasing the same titles in different skins.
The truth is, the technical returns of hardware are stagnating. In the past, the creative vision of developers was highly constrained by hardware capabilities before any other concerns, but this is no longer the case. The technology is improving, but the games are only getting prettier, not more complex, not better.
Is “pretty” really the reason we play videogames? Does it really justify being trapped on this hardware treadmill? How many times will we have to invest in system upgrades just to keep playing the same game? And really, why should we?
Against New Games
Good Graphics Are Unimportant
In practice, good graphics means whatever is closest to photorealism today. It’s a relative, moving standard that becomes outdated every generation: yesterday’s realism is today’s eyesore. Photorealistic graphics is primarily a marketing gimmick. It’s used to sell every new generation of hardware, and important enough that the industry often resorts to deceptive advertising. The technical quality of graphics has little influence on the actual experience of play. The visual aspect of the game experience is largely affected by its art design, not its graphical standard. Emphasizing photorealism is a short-term decision. It looks good only in the current generation, but ages poorly in comparison to stylized or abstracted visuals. Achieving the contemporary standard of photorealism is expensive. The drive for visual quality is the primary factor raising the cost of game development. The result is that game companies experience tighter profit margins and are forced to limit design decisions to the market conservative.
The Hardware Treadmill Is Unnecessary
The hardware benefits to technical complexity have plateaued. Development will hit other ceilings long before they do a hardware limitation. Consumers are forced to upgrade their hardware every generation to continue playing new products, but this hardware treadmill does nothing to contribute to gameplay. The continuously rising hardware standard now exists entirely to support every generation’s new graphical standard. Developers could optimize for lower minimum hardware requirements and provide extensive end-user graphics configurability, but they choose not to, forcing everyone to stay on the hardware treadmill to continue playing new games. The exceptions prove the rule: Valve, Blizzard and Croteam are studios well-known for their highly optimized releases.
Harmful Practices Have Become Industry Standard
The industry as a whole increasingly employs consumer-hostile practices in its publication and distribution, such as: artificial exclusivity, centralized multiplayer servers, DRM, exclusive content and pre-order bonuses, limited backwards compatibility, Hostility to Modding, no LAN multiplayer, no split-screen, console online subscriptions, P2W and microtranscation models, paid DLC, subscription releases or seasonal passes and vendor lock-in. Even the indie industry, which has heavily commercialized over the last decade, has begun to adopt some questionable practices, such as: closed source & non-free software, early access, crowdfunding and paywalled content. It is uncomfortable to participate in and unethical to support this industry, and it will only change when consumers as a group reject it.
Good Games Don’t Age
Good game design is eternal. The best games of the past are all just as rewarding to play today as they were at their release. This is evidenced by the common practice of rereleasing older games. Innovation in game design is less and less tied to innovation in technology. Any game made today could easily have been made 10 years ago once we discount graphics. In the long-term, games are evaluated on the merits of their game design, while the technical achievement of their graphics become irrelevant. The near-complete historical library of video games is readily accessible through emulation. A lifetime isn’t enough to exhaust the long list of highly regarded games. The majority of games of every generation will be forgettable, and conversely, only the worthwhile ones will be remembered. There is little reason to bother sifting through today’s trash when you can play yesterday’s gems.
Trans-Generational Manifesto
Reject graphical quality as an influence on your interpretation of a game’s value.
Reject any game that cannot be played on inexpensive hardware.
Reject any game that is designed or released with harmful practices.
Configure your system(s) to make full use of the emulation options available.
Consider all new games released today alongside all games released in the past, not only in the isolated context of their own generation.
Consider all new games released today from a long-term perspective. Ask yourself: In 20 years, would I choose to play this game, or the 40 year old one?
Harmful Industry Practices
Introduction
This page aims to be a comprehensive list of the harmful practices common-place in the videogame industry. They are all either exploitative and/or unethical. Any hobbyist would also note that many of these practices are not just anti-consumer, but anti-game. The industry’s short-sighted profit motivation throws away any regard for the long-term future of the videogames they produce, denying their right as works of art to be experienced in a playable state.
As we firmly believe in taking a long-term perspective on videogaming, it is our goal to make clear the nature and effect of their actions.
Harmful Industry Practices
- Artificial Exclusivity
- Publishers regularly make deals with console companies to not release an individual title to their competitor’s systems. Restricting games to their system in this way forces consumers to purchase the system to gain access to the title. The different libraries of each console is the primary differentation factor, but due to system similarities, especially between Microsoft and Sony’s offerings in the previous 2 generations, multi-system releases have become relatively cost-effective. Employing contractually restricted exclusivity allows the console companies to create artifical value for their system at the expense of the consumer. It is also hurts the games ability to be played both in the present and in the long-term, especially considering the general trend against backwards compatability.
- Centralized Multiplayer Servers
- Centralized multiplayer servers for a multiplayer-focused game makes its lifespan entirely beholden to the company’s whims and fortune. If there is no LAN or split-screen options available, the game’s multiplayer component is rendered effectively unplayable the moment they choose to pull the plug. Companies can and often do shut down servers without warning, even for games with still-active communities. Any company that cares about a future for its game would provide the ability for players to self-host their own servers.
- Digital Rights Management
- Exclusive Content/Pre-order Bonuses
- Limited Backwards Compatibility
- Hostility to Modding
- No LAN Multiplayer
- No Split-Screen Multiplayer
- Online Subscription
- P2W/Microtransaction Models
- Paid DLC
- Subscription Releases or Seasonal Passes
- Vendor Lock-in
- Harmful Indie Practices
These practices are not nearly as harmful as those listed above, but are notable because the bad faith actors practicing these things exploit the communal spirit of indie game development, selfishly causing damage to the wider community in favor of increased personal profits.
- Closed Source & Non-Free Software
- Crowdfunding
- Crowdfunding is only ethical if the developers do not profit on their product, or a stake in the future profits is provided to the contributors. By its nature, the contributors are expected to play the role of investor and take on full financial risk. Further, the crowdfunders risk is amplified by the lack of assurance controls that allow them to make sure the end-product follows what they were promised. The major crowdfunding platforms offer zero means to punish a team who fails to complete their project or for the investors to re-acquire their funds. The entire process is an act of both good faith and extreme risk on the crowdfunder’s part.
- In contrast, the developers take on zero risk. They are paid for their time and suffer no consequences if they fail to be open about their financials or production schedule, or even deliver their promised product. The only contractual obligation is with the crowdfunding platform and that is limited to making the apperance of sincere intent to deliver, at least until the money is in their hands. Yet, despite taking on no risk of any kind, as a culture developers somehow feel entitled to then sell their product and keep a full share of its profits. Despite taking on the full risk of investment, the crowdfunders receive no return from the sales.
- There is no justification for the developer to sell their product other than they can get away with it. If the crowdfunding is understood as donation by the community, then the completed work should be provided freely to the commons. A non-profit museum does not fund an artist residency only for the artist to sell the works to private collectors, it is expected to be presented to the public. Why would developers reap pure profit after already being paid for their time on a product they took on no risk for? It is a nonsensical business proposal. That the crowdfunding companies do not provide any method to mitigate abuse or that the crowdfunders open themselves to abuse by acting on good faith does not make it justified.
- Early Access
- Making consumers pay for early access is effectively requiring a game’s early supporters to pay to play the role of beta tester. This is a duty people in the past performed for free as a contribution to the indie community and to help the development of the games they loved. Monetizing this position is an act of bad faith. It is especially exploitative when it is a decision taken after the community has already formed around the game.
- A secondary result of normalizing the sale of games in an incomplete state is de-incentivizing financially motivated developers from producing quality work as their customerbase and their money is already obtained by the incomplete product. Similar to crowdfunded products only needing to worry about selling their pitch, not a complete game, early access products only need to worry about selling their demo. If it does not seem the future profits are worth continuing the game for, the developer suffers no consequences from dropping the project despite his non-contractual promise to the “early backers”. This is an opportunity easily and regularly exploited by indie developers.
- Paywalled Development Blogs
- Independent developers regularly make use of the Patreon platform to regulate donations in the form of a monthly subscription. However, for some donations are not enough, and they resort to cutting content away from their fanbase to share to only to “Patreon Backers” in an attempt to incentivize purchasing a subscription above a certain rate. In extreme cases, the cut content is actual game content, but most often it is content regarding the development of the game. In this way, they have monetized the common dialogue on development processes, and by doing so, hurt its openness. This stagnates the growth of the indie development community by limiting friendly, open communication. of innovations and techniques.