Rich Carlson has been making computer games professionally for five years.  He's worked on megabudget computer games for Looking Glass Studios, Ion Storm and a few other high profile computer game companies. He recently started creating his own modestly-priced computer games (along with Iikka Keranen and Bill "Phosphorous" Sears, under the name Digital Eel) for a Seattle-based boardgame company called Cheapass Games. He gave this unedited interview to FairPlay.

FP: Do you agree with FairPlay's belief that games are currently too
expensive?

RC: Yes I do. As I see it, electronic games are becoming a premium-priced form of entertainment. I have mixed feelings about that. Computer games have always been expensive. But I have little respect for games that regurgitate the same gameplay time after time, or are short "one time through" affairs. Games like these are not a good deal at $50 - $65, regardless of the time and cost involved in making them. You can buy Monopoly for what, $15?  Maybe less. Monopoly will give your family literally decades of replayability. You get far more entertainment than what you paid for, so to speak.

Current commercially produced computer games are often best described as disposable entertainment.  Here's the deal:  I can buy two copies of Starships Unlimited for every copy of Max Payne (or UT2003 or whatever) that I purchase.  Starships Unlimited is an independent game, it costs $20 and offers endless replayability.  Max Payne can be played through in 6 - 10 hours, and then you're done with it.  Throw it in the wastebasket, or stuff it in the back of your dusty game shelf.  Game over.  Goodbye $50.
 

To be fair, Max Payne has a lot going for it, like a cool main character, neat graphics and special effects, and some good gameplay, but none of this matters when you're through playing the game.  You won't even remember it in a year or two....but you'll still be playing Starships Unlimited. Replayability = value.  Many commercial game makers have either forgotten this, or they have chosen to make and sell game types that are not replayable.  But it is their choice, and it is their fault.


FP: Do you believe that making games significantly cheaper would increase sales to such an extent that the industry would generate more revenue and profit overall?

RC: Well that's a tough one because people want to think that "expensive" means quality.  Marketers know this and price their products accordingly. And publishers want to charge as much for a new game as the market will bear so that they can make as much of a profit as possible. Also, it is a matter of perceptions. When we go to EB we see that "cheap games" are shabby games, old games, coasterware and games that didn't sell.  So the perception is that cheap means "not as cool as the full-priced stuff."

I don't think that anyone, or any arguments, will ever give Electronic Arts (for example) reasons enough to cause them to consider lowering the list prices of their latest crop of games.  The industry is a big heavy metal machine, and it's rolling, and it ain't gonna stop.....

But if prices were lowered industry-wide, would games sell better? Definitely. It would also boost the sales of PC's and consoles. You can see this type of thing happen when a newly-released game isn't selling very well and the publisher reacts by dropping the price by $10 and zoom, off she goes.
X
The answer, as I see it, is for some entity to come along and create a solid profitable distribution network for independently-produced games (with a greater variety of genres and price ranges).  In small ways, this is beginning to happen, but not fast enough and not extensively.  As a friend of mine pointed out, movies and the music business have avenues for independent distribution, so why not games? Because publishers are after the fast money. They want multimillion dollar hits. They prefer to risk millions of dollars in this way, and if you examine the financial summaries of a company like EA, you'll soon learn that these risks are in fact extremely profitable. They don't deal with indie distribution simply because they don't need to.

FP: Do you feel that lower-priced games would mean a better chance of success for quirkier, more innovative products which currently fail - as people would be more likely to take risks at impulse prices?

RC: That's an interesting question.  I'd only be able to take a stab at the answer and say yes.  But it is instinct telling me this and not facts. To play devil's advocate for a bit, unique, quirky and innovative big budget games do get made, although far fewer than in previous years. Most games are copycat titles, but every year a couple shine out above the rest as something really special.  So what is going on is this kind of brute-force "throw money at it" scenario which still manages to produce great games, even though it is a wasteful and very "lowest common denominator" process. Go figure.  ;)

But in my opinion, there can and should be more than two or three innovative, unique  and unusual titles per year. I'm spoiled.  I started playing games in the late 70's.  I saw the dawn of computer games, and the explosion of creativity that followed for a decade and a half until Doom changed everything - a level of creative involvement and intensity unmatched in recent years, no matter what anyone says.

FP: But would it actually work out that way? Some developers have said that lower prices would actually stifle creativity.

I also was around to experience the board game Renaissance in the 80's.  You had incredible board games, war games, fantasy games, rpg's, games in every genre imaginable, coming out each week!  When I look at the pile of shallow, derivative, "same as it ever was" 3D action games, so-called RTS games and D&D rip-offs which fill the computer store shelves these days, I just shake my head, because few know how good it could truly be for computer gamers.

3D, and 3D technology and hardware, are what is driving the computer game industry right now.  Everyone is trying to beat everyone else with the latest graphics pizzazz. That's where most of the emphasis is, and that's where most of the money goes.  But an event horizon of sorts will soon occur, when every game will have the same graphic capability, and graphic snazz won't be a prime selling point anymore.  We're already seeing this with game architecture, landscaping and level design.  Getting characters to look great is the next big step (see Doom 3) but once that hurdle is exceeded, then it's back to just making good games again. I'll tell you that this can't come soon enough for me.

Meanwhile, I have ideas for games that don't all require a 3D presentation. And I have ideas for 3D games that aren't remotely on the scale of something like Morrowind.  So I'm going to pursue these things, and damn the torpedoes.

Digital Eel games will always be cheap to purchase. We can control that right now.  And we can make sure, to the very best of our ability, that gamers will get quality, fun, replayability and value for their money. If I work for the big boys, I just don't feel that I can make that promise.  That's how we're dealing with this.  By ignoring the industry at large in favor of a mellower, less mighty approach to this endlessly fascinating task of making groovy games.

FP: And do you think this could potentially provide the industry with a big creative boost as well as a financial one?

RC: It could. And the industry needs that creative boost constantly. How does it survive without it?

>><<