In Cinema Studies, Altman writes on the ‘Producer’s Game’. The basic concept of the ‘Producer’s Game’ is that when assembling a film a producer will assess what components of other films were successful. For example, depending on the preferred audience, a producer may involve a love triangle because they know that will lead to increased engagement, and that increased consumerism then leads to increased revenue etc.
I wonder how true this is of video games. For example, in fighting games, a gorey and visceral slow-motion kill is a popular graphic. Can a graphic then become so popular with consumers that its inclusion becomes a necessity within a genre? If so, could we then suggest that a genre is partly developed through consumer preference? As opposed to developing independently of consumer interaction.
In context of the gaming industry, would the pressure to include certain components be greater because of the size of the industry? The gaming industry stands at $196.1 Billion as of 2022, compared to the film industry at $25.8 Billion. Even if these numbers aren’t completely accurate, the difference in scale between the two is clear. The gaming industry is worth close to 9 times more than the film industry, possibly meaning that competition between games is great and that games cannot afford to sacrifice key traits such as slow-motion kills or whatever it be. The other possibility is that because the film industry is shrinking, it does not have the freedom to the take the risks by introducing new aspects to a genre. If a film tries to add a component that has not been popular, or something new, and it does not succeed, then that component will probably not feature in films there after. A good example of this would be superhero/ marvel films. What would have first been a risk, have now become a block buster staple. Films follow the same formula and dominate the market, leaving little room for feature or non-super hero films. On the other hand, because the size of the gaming industry is so large, and the time span of games tend to be far longer than a film, the impact of a feature within a genre may not be so large, thus encouraging risks and differences within a genre.
Nevertheless, if a game is not attractive to consumers, it won’t be a financial success. And to try and ensure that games are attractive, developers will rely on certain features or innovate around consumer preferences. So even if games are not held hostage to certain components or arcs like films are, they are still controlled by consumer preferences. In both cases, the implication is that consumers effect how a game develops and what remains within genres.
Arshaan, I found your discussion of adding new, not yet popular, components to films/video games extremely interesting. I agree that when films/video games attempt to try something new and are unsuccessful, this component is unlikely to become a staple of following films/video games. However, reading your point that due to the size of the gaming industry, videogame makers are more likely to take risks and implement new features, made me think about the recent Battle Royale trend, and its domination of the gaming industry. Since around 2017, with the release of games such as Fortnite (Epic Games, 2017) and PUBG (PUBG Studios, 2017), many, many games have used the same ‘Battle Royale’ formula to dominate the market, even including AAA titles such as the three most recent games in the Call of Duty franchise. I have no data to back this up, but I’m sure that the Battle Royale’s impact on the game industry could be just as big, if not bigger, (at least short term) than the superhero’s impact on the film industry. I don’t think that just because the videogame industry is bigger, it is less impacted by popular concepts/staples, or that developers are more likely to take risks.
Arshaan, I think that your reflections on the influence of consumer preference on video game design and production are very thought-provoking. I’m wondering if there’s a difference between large production companies and smaller indie studios in their willingness to take risks. On one hand, small indie studios have the incentive to take risks in order to make unique games that compete with larger companies who have much more resources. If a small studio and a large company each make a game that are similar in terms of genre, the small indie studio cannot compete with the financially and technologically superior company who would also have more popularity and established reputation. Thus the incentive for indie developers to experiment and innovate.
On the other hand, smaller indie developers have much smaller rooms for the risks they would take, as they are much less capable of handling a potential failed venture compared to a larger studio. It is certainly a very interesting question to explore.
Arshaan, I love how you bring in Altman’s ‘Producer’s Game’ to consider video games as an assemblage of components targeted towards particular audiences. Through this framework, can we then view new video game releases as a potentially uninspired shuffling of components until a commercial successful combination is found?
A lot of film critiques dislike when love triangles are seemingly thrown haphazardly into movies because they view these plot points as driven by profit rather than artistic vision. Can the same be said about video games that “stick” to established genres too closely? Say we all agree on which game is the most exemplary roguelike game. Can we consider that game an artistic achievement? Or is it just recycling a known combination of components that are compatible in terms of consumer preference? Are innovative or “unique” video games actually artistic achievements, or are video game studios just swapping out components to form new combinations until a new commercial hit is discovered?
One thing which I think influences this debate is the difference in production of films vs videogames. To make a blockbuster hit, there needs to be a huge investment into its production, and then profits are gained at the theatres. While on the other hand, videogame development is relatively accessible. Sure, we have major companies such as Riot and Epic Games, but we also have many very popular games from small developers. I know someone already mentioned the difference, however in terms of development I must remark that it only takes one person to make a videogame. Stardew Valley, a very popular game, was developed originally by ONE person! This is literally impossible with films. Groups controlled by multiple decision-making people are more likely to make safe investments, due to debates being centered around money going for security. Individuals, on the other hand, can vary on whether they want to take risks or play it safe. In terms of videogame development, this leads to a wider variety in gaming.
To add on to this, the film industry is filled with straight old white men. Not everyone, but most board members fit this demographic which prioritizes the safety of their ratings (this is definitely the case for Disney at least). They are the types of people who do not take risks, and large gaming production companies may also fit this demographic (I remember reading a Riot article on how women felt out of place working at that company). But, small indie dev companies are much more diverse, filled with young people willing to take risks to make a name for themselves.