You must have been reading the same editorial I did in CGW. The editor was complaining that it is virtually impossible for a person to get ahold of a game that has made it into the CGW Hall of Fame. This is a symptom of the problem you mentioned here. There is no such thing as retreads of games in this industry. I doubt that you could get much for a packaging of Wolfenstein 3D. I recently saw Super Mario Bros. used cartridges announced at Target Retail stores for 10 cents. Yes you read that right 10 cents.(not sure why they wasted the ad space on it but that is a different topic)

I think that making some sort of distribution network through which to sell old games and republish them is essential to the survival of this industry. Aside from everyone creating Online Games with subscription revenue streams, only advertising revenue streams are left. Without an abundance of revenue streams in the industry we will have serious problems in the future.

Maybe an answer is to republish games in collections much like the music industry does. Maybe one day you will know you are old when your favorite video games come out in a collection of hits labeled by decade.

I am bantering on without direction so I will leave this up to someone else with more cohesive thoughts to finish.

Kressilac

------------------
Derek Licciardi

Editorial? Is it in the current CGW? I'll have to grab a copy and see what's up.

This is actually an issue I've been thinking about for the last 6 months or so. I just felt like using this forum to talk about it and see if I was on track or out of line...

------------------
DavidRM
Samu Games

Seems like you're pretty much on target. I have thought about the same and the best answer I could come up with is that you keep releasing expansion packs and upgrades to the game. This ensures the game lives on but also incurs additional development costs associated with the effort.

*shrug*
Kressilac

Anyone else have any thoughts on this?

------------------
DavidRM
Samu Games

I'll have a go at this one.

I don't think it's fair to compare the relatively young computer games industry to the more established industries you mentioned (publishing, movie, and board game). I believe that we have barely scratched the surface of what can be delivered in a computer game. We have much to learn about providing interesting and fun games software on existing hardware, and as our hardware gets better, the possibilities for what we can do in our software increases as well. This is true not only in games, but any kind of software development. This includes not only game content, but interface, mood, visuals, transitions, storylines, everything.

This is not to say that they will not be able to find better ways to entertain us with movies, board games, and books. It's just that they are more mature industries, where a lot of the niggling issues have been worked out already. Changes WILL come to these industries, albeit slower. A good example is the rampant use of CGI in movies today. Here is a technology that is available to film-makers that makes movies that were once thought impossible to make possible.

Cya,
Dave

My own silly opinion...

I think that this problem can be broken down into two factors (there are more, but these are two that come to my mind).

1) Our industry is so technology-oriented, and ever-changing. If someone picks Game X, which is horrible but new, and they pick up Game Y which is great but 5 years old, they're going to go with X because it looks so much better.

2) The gaming industry is such a small one that already so many games are fighting for a very limited amount of shelf-space. Once a game loses its appeal of the "hot new thing" then, boom, it's off the shelf at your local CompUSA.

I'm not sure if any publishers already do this but, instead of re-packaging games with new add-ons and new editions, why don't they just release the same game about a year later, but at a much cheaper price (50%). Sort of a paperback edition.

These are just my rambling thoughts. Comment on whatever you like.

Justin Martenstein

A quick comment...

You can still buy Quake2. I think a big reason for this is the MOD's out there (don't get me wrong, the reputation does plenty for it). I think if you make your game expandable enough that other people can expand it, you get a game which creates a cult like following.

Let's be honest, Quake2 is not the most fun single player game in the world. Throw in some Action Quake or Superheroes Quake, and other MODS, you've got a game that's fun as hell to play on the internet.

Quake 1 is an even better example. The single player game is not really fun, but when Team Fortress came out for it, I had a SERIOUS addiction. I'd be willing to bet you can still buy Quake 1.

I think making a game expandable goes a long way...

------------------

-Kentamanos

I think there are several things out there currently that are already proving that games can have more legs.

Specifically these are expansion packs and ports to consoles (for PC only first games).

If a game is successful, it can have add-on packs which require no more programming, and usually very limited new model creation beyond levels. The units are basically the same, but there are more levels and probably a new story-slice.

Then a successful PC game can (sometimes) be ported to a console (or a number of consoles) and get more of a boost there.

For staying on the shelves as-is, you are pretty much out of luck. With the 4000+ commercial PC titles being developed every year, you are lucky to get on the shelves in the first place (well, you have to pay for it), but staying there beyond the time when your copies are flying off the shelves is impossible.

Retailers want to put games that WILL fly off the shelves up after yours.

One way of retaining a longer stay I think is to make a game with a theme that is unique (ie. not FPS). For instance, a Rodeo game may stay in stores a lot longer cause there is only 1 rodeo game. No one is coming along to replace it, which all the other games have to compete with.

-Geoff

I think when you make a version 1 of a game and it has succes, then most likely you'll be making a version 2 and 3 and so on... The lifecycle of this game is then spread over much more that 3-6 months... that's the best way to stay in the business I think.

------------------
Singa
Lead Artist @ Team Sigma

Definitely true. Getting a successful franchise is the best, and for most, the only way to stay in the business. Actually hitting one of those is pretty tough though. There is a limited supply of famous'ness going around, the more pushed franchises, the less any of them really own in mind share.

-Geoff