Hacker News Reader

Comment by paxys | Hacker News Reader

I don't really buy the argument in the title. The demand for complex video games hasn't gone anywhere. The recent Civ games have all done well, along with dozens of other titles in the same genre as well as grand strategy, role playing, MOBA and more. Yes online shooters are popular, but the gaming market as a whole has grown substantially. Just look at the player numbers for EVE Online, Dota 2, X-COM, Starcraft, Crusader Kings, Total War series, Europa Universalis. Civ is comparatively pretty straightforward.

Kinda related, but "you couldn't make [XYZ] today" is for some reason a very frequent quote from artists, directors, authors, comedians etc., despite the fact that works far more brazen/offensive than what they did are being released every day, and there's definitely a market for it.

View on HN

Back in the 90s when Civ was released for the Amiga 500 everyone played it. I was at school at the time, and almost everyone who had a computer had a copy. It was phenomenally popular.

For comparison, EVE Online has 300,000 monthly active players. Call of Duty has 30 million. That implies that about 1% of gamers are interested in the sort of games Sid Meier is talking about. The demand for "complex video games" absolutely has diminished dramatically as a proportion of the gaming industry.

The first Civilization game sold 1.5 million copies across all platforms. Super Mario World, which released in the same year, sold over 20 million. So things really haven’t changed all that much. Casual gaming will always have a larger addressable market.

Even otherwise, the crux is that the entire gaming pie has grown substantially. There are lots of new genes and platforms which have become popular, but demand for games like Civ has grown as well.

The first Civilization game sold 1.5 million copies across all platforms.

There were about 50 people in my year at school playing pirated copies taken from one original. The kid with an external disk drive and a copy of Cyclone was very popular.

As far as I'm aware piracy on PC hasn't decreased.

I was replying the point about Civ selling 1.5m and Mario selling 20m. There were a lot more people playing Civ than the sales might indicate.

Good point, although note that console game rental was also a thing at the time, it is easy to share cartridges (just not playing at the same time), and I'd guess there was a larger second hand market in console games as well. So there would also be more console game players than sales would indicate.

Yeah 90s with handful games available and rampart piracy its no wonder you could have been 'successful' back in the day. Meaning become popular game/brand.

Today people expect quality, and something that caters to them. And you have plenty to choose from. That's why you cannot make game that everyone will play and enjoy (except of Portal, everyone loves Portal).

Games are widespread form of entertainment now. a 1% now is worth beyond imagination what 100% in 90s was worth.

In a way its easier for a niche game to be financially successful.

> Yeah 90s with handful games available and rampart piracy its no wonder you could have been 'successful' back in the day. Meaning become popular game/brand.

Of my friends, I think only 2 of us had actually purchased Starcraft licenses, lol. Everyone played it, and everyone loved it but ere'one didn't pay for it...

Why does the proportion matter? Yes, more casual gamers entered the scene - this is to be expected as computers before more accessible, but the number of people willing to play complex strategy games has overall gone up.

I think this is the crux of the artists' complaints: you can't conquer a mature, diverse market with a one-trick pony. Back in the day, the 300k audience your game (or song, or art) had was a very large chunk of everyone that's into a new medium. Today, a sequel to that work could gather a 3M audience, but then the artists look at the market being 300M strong and weep, instead of being satisfied with "merely" 10x the audience.

EVE requires a subscription (has a limited version though, but many people have multiple accounts, so it evens out I guess), while Call of Duty does not, afaik.

That is a big factor, especially with younger audiences, but ofc it doesn't explain 300k vs 30m.

Also the golden age of classic MMOs is kind of past, look at World of Warcraft numbers 8-13 years ago and compare them today, even when lumping all "fantasy" MMOs together.

I'm not so sure everybody played it. A lot of people didn't. Many more casual games sold a lot more.

But in the market for complex strategy games, Civ was absolutely king. But that's because the market was far less saturated at the time; nobody else had made a game like that before. Now there's thousands of games trying to do things like that, so it's much harder to stand out.

I have a similar opinion. I have seen this news in other websites and I think the article sentence should be approached in other way.

- First Sid is not in his 20s anymore and he probably today has other games or genres he likes more other than complex strategy games. I speak for myself i used to love Starcraft, AoE and RPGs on my teenager years, nowadays i can only get myself to play action games. People change over time, plus some games need more time to get them to work than others.

- Considering the whole video game market. Games like Civilization are still played by many people, but not a huge hit like Fortnite, COD or League of Legends. There is no question there are still people looking for complex games: See Dota2, Escape from Tarkov or even BR games but games like Civilization are still hugely profitable ? I doubt, and video game publishers of course are interested in high profitability. Lets not forget about the mobile market where a huge number of people like to play mostly casual games, for natural reasons.

- As he said, back in the day it was the perfect game to be done in that time. PC gaming got better and people were looking for an immersive and complex game. Nowadays there are several titles which offer the same.

I feel like a lot of indie games today build with a more dated or limited graphics style and they sell just fine (as others have mentioned, Factorio looks no better than a 90s PC game). Maybe the expectations for a Sid Meier title are too high and he's a victim of his own success in that respect, but I don't think it's true that just because modern machines can do so much that people expect all games to max out their potential.

Civ games is not complex compared to other games like Europa Universalis, Crusaders Kings and EVE Online. I used to love Civ games but the newer versions are just not engaging for a long play time. It seems the permutation of outcomes are less compared to the other games or I know the result because I played hundred of hours so its less exciting.

Do you think they could make Blazing Saddles today?

Yes.

If you want a more elaborate answer, then yes there's really no question about it.

Everyone points to the use of racial epithets in Blazing Saddles as a reason that the movie couldn't be made today. Ignoring that Quentin Tarantino regularly makes movies with racial epithets today.

Blazing Saddles is profoundly anti-racist. It shows racism and bigotry in a negative light. The racist characters are boors or villains or both. The black sheriff is the hero and shown to be in the right nearly every time. Why couldn't it be made today?

I mean, they made Tropic Thunder more recently which is at least as offensive. I think it all comes in waves.

First example that came to my mind. There isn't a point in the last 30 years that that movie could have been made.

I agree that the Civ point is a little silly. But try to play the original X-Com now. I have fond memories of poring over strategy guides for that thing and starting to see a measure of success. But it's really tough to play after visiting the modern counterparts. And not because of the graphics.

X-Com Apocalypse is one of my favorite games. I can't stand the new ones. They have shiny graphics (which I generally like in most games) but they have streamlined stuff to the point where it doesn't even remotely feel like the same kind of game.

Part of the fun of X-Com Apocalypse was how detailed and overwhelming everything got. It was hard so success felt good.

> There isn't a point in the last 30 years that that movie could have been made.

Why not? Pulp Fiction was made in that time frame, features roughly as many racial slurs and even won awards.

Not generally, but maybe as "Borat In The Wild West"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com