Less R&R, More R&D

Here’s a question I want you to ask yourself: “When was the last time I experienced an original and innovative video game concept?” For some of you, it may have been quite recently. For others, it may have been years. Perhaps an examination of perspective is in order. I’m speaking in terms of genre diversification and gameplay mechanics, in particular.

Have big name game publishers grown complacent in their criteria for what passes as a "groundbreaking" game and a game that just sells? History seems to point in this direction; as the first person shooter genre began to take off with the advent of online multiplayer in console gaming, we experienced an influx of original IPs with a heavy focus on first person shooter elements. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare was a big deal five years ago. It has only grown more popular over the years, as Modern Warfare 3 is reported to have brought in over $400 million in first-day sales, a record-breaking number that leads Activision Blizzard CEO Bobby Kotick to believe that this launch may be “the biggest entertainment launch of all time in any medium.”

Of course this is good news for Activision Blizzard and any other publisher looking to capitalize on a consistently profitable brand. After all – that’s just good business. But is it good news for the industry, in the long run? With publishers following the “rinse and repeat” method of big-budget game development, are these same publishers dedicating enough resources to research and development?

In a recent Gamasutra article by game industry columnist Paul Hyman, the issue of R&D is addressed in detail, where it is recommended that publishers with the capital available to invest millions in the development of a new console game with a large design team turn that investment towards a much smaller team of developers to promote “creatively ambitious and forward-thinking projects.” The basic idea is this: without the time and the resources to create conceptual games that the company can afford to scrap, innovation is stifled.

This is how indie game developers are beginning to break down barriers to entry in the entertainment software industry. With smaller teams (1-5 developers) capable of creating concept games at relatively low costs and effectively capitalizing on the “trial and error” method of game design by throwing out “prototypes” that are inadequate and keeping the ones that show promise, indie studios are demonstrating their ability to “think outside the box.”  And they are accomplishing this with a fraction of the budget applied towards developing and publishing a major console release. Imagine the possibilities if publishers were to set their developers loose on researching and developing a "groundbreaking" new IP instead of tying up their manpower rehashing old games to sell as new titles.