THE CURRENT STATE OF 

COMPUTER GAME PUBLISHERS



What happened to my great love of SSI? Yes, the company still occasionally produces good games (Panzer General 3D Assault, Imperialism), but they are overshadowed by a slate of canceled titles (often of dubious quality, admittedly, which raises the question: why were they ever started?), quick and dirty clones (Dark Colony), and a lack of so-called hard-core wargames (apparently anything not dealing with World War II!). Even worse, the demise of informative catalogs, player feedback cards, and even the old newsletter Inside SSI (which could easily be converted to web format-but hasn't been) have all combined to cool my ardor. The Golden Age of SSI is passed. It officially ended, I believe, when Mindscape--killer of good software companies (Datasoft and the original Mindscape)--acquired it. Although SSI has soldiered on, it has not prospered, and I fear for its continuance under Mattel management.  This fear is compounded by Mattel's recent attempts to unload Mattel Interactive.

My dream would be to see SSI return to its roots. Great graphics add a lot to a gaming experience, but they are no substitute for quality documentation (!!!) and, of course, quality game play. Get those talented designers behind Rails West!, President Elect, Colonial Conquest, Roadwar 2000, Phantasie, and Geopolitique 1990 working on games again! Find this generation's Danielle Bunten-Berry (Cartels & Cutthroats). Yes, game design is now an art performed by committees, but excellent games require a strong vision at the helm. I think there is still a market for high-quality non-mass market games.


Speaking of which, why is the mass market everyone's goal still? Wouldn't gaming companies, in general, make more money working on original designs rather than cloning Quake, Doom, Myst, MechWarrior, or some other title? A few clones are, admittedly, often good, especially for fans of the original, but wasting development dollars on junk like, oh, CyClones can't be good for anyone. Better to cut back on the graphics budget and work on a great game that won't necessarily be in PC Data's Top 10 for the next 18 months due to strong K-Mart sales (By the way, too many people blame Wal-Mart, by the way. In general, they have a lot of good games in stock. And even more "respectable" retailers such as Best Buy or Electronics Boutique have their share of asinine hunting games) but can still sell strongly enough among gamers to make a decent profit.


Also, what about the legions of people buying low-cost PCs without state-of-the-art graphics cards and such? The ever escalating spiral of gaming requirements--caused by graphics much more than gameplay--automatically leaves out a huge possible market! Perhaps it's time to learn a better lesson from the U.K. than past lessons (short shelf life, graphics over gameplay) and start seriously pounding budget repackagings of older games. There are a lot of great games-in all genres, from many publishers-published over the last few years that, while not of use to brag about your system's great performance, are great fun to play and could serve as better examples of computer gaming than Deer Hunter, Myst, or the typical budget bin resident.

So if SSI isn't doing this, who is? That's a darn fine question. I used to have a list here of publishers I still respected, but I realized it was hopelessly out of date and deleted it.  I do have some respect for Strategy First as a publisher of some great games, but I fear they're growing too fast and also publishing an increasing amount of garbage.  Other than that, there's really no one left.  Interplay, my sentimental favorite, is on the ropes and becoming basically Titus USA.  Infogrames doesn't understand the American market's history (why else would they publish the splendid role-playing game Neverwinter Nights under the Atari label?).  Electronic Arts is only really concerned with consoles.  Of course, the less said about Ubi Soft, the better!

Here is to a better tomorrow!

 

Back to Home





1
Hosted by www.Geocities.ws

1