Ultimate Fantasy Industry

What should a healthy, modern, video game industry look like?

1) Non-PC hardware.

There is a lot of historical support for video games being successful when they aren't trying to be PC systems. It mostly comes down to a supplier advantage. Lower-end hardware benefits from a large number of hardware suppliers making hardware on commodity manufacturing equipment. Sharing PC, not to mention server, hardware means more competition and tighter pricing structures. Not to mention running the risk of shortages. This doesn't mean every system uses a different architecture.

With BRICs supporting RISC-V, it would be very opportunistic for manufacturers to make a break with CISC and make the leap over to the far more available RISC chips.

2) Industry Standards

The reason arcades were successful and VR is failing comes down to a difference in approach. Arcades, especially the golden era, benefitted from the Japanese Amusement Machine and Marketing Association, aka JAMMA. JAMMA is a trade association that works like a governing body, with representatives from several companies within the industry. JAMMA made wiring standards that became defacto for the arcade industry, which allowed operators and developers to easily repair and design motherboards for arcade cabinets. 

These standards reduce cost by leveraging scale. VR manufacturers didn't learn from the success of arcades and the failure of 3DO, instead trying to build an industry without cooperation. The result was prices that were too high and products that could never gain enough market to drive growth and innovation.

It doesn't need to be hardware. The evolution of middleware as a need for third-party development is an opportunity for collaboration. A true, platform-agnostic engine supported by all console manufacturers could pave a pretty bright road for those seeking to leave the X architecture market droughts.

3) Ecosystems

If Apple did anything truly well, it was ecosystems. And while internet seagulls squawk about the need to end console exclusivity, they aren't drawing a comparison to the more widely supported proprietary ecosystem of Apple products. Whether it was iTunes and iPod, iPhone and the App Store, or Macbook and Garageband, the fact is that Apple products are a lot less appealing without the exclusive software that integrates seamlessly.

Console exclusives aren't for locking people out, but rather for bringing developers in. It is to give developers an idea of the limits of the hardware so they can cut scope before the project begins, not after. Console exclusives also spur consumer demand and give third-parties a market to assess and access. 

Console exclusives help develop brand identity and make it easier for consumers to maximize their return on investment. It is easier buying the "Cozy Console" when you are a cozy gamer that wants to know you will have plenty of cozy content and features.

4) Ownership

I am usually a warrior for convenience, but digital distribution is creating more problems than it is solving. 

DRM is perfectly acceptable if we are talking about locking physical media up so it can't be cloned. CD burning and Napster undoubtedly helped kill CDs as media, and definitely helped kill the Dreamcast. Consumers need to meet producers at the saddlepoint of value and sustainability. Creators need rights, but those rights need limits.

Digital distribution isn't ready for the mainstage anyway because our methods of recording digital ownership have failed to standardize themselves in an effective way. When Blockchain failed to deliver true DRM for individuals and screenshot monkey art became more of a joke than a proof-of-concept, crypto became the last blockchain bastion. It has since been assaulted by AI-empowered actors, cracking wallet codes and making Gone In 60 Seconds look like a movie about Kia Bois heisting Power Wheels. The security just isn't there.

The legal clarity isn't there either. EULA after EULA has proven that DRM falls short and producers know it. We went from media purchased to license leased. It is a legal practice as old as fiefdoms and true-blood lineages. Even the mighty Valve has admitted that Steam libraries are not transferrable. 

Without that date stamp of product made, ownership transferred, it falls upon the producer to manage all licenses associated within that package. In other words, that essential 1980s soundtrack for your 2000s game comes with a time limit. Name, Image, and Likeness patches mandatory for digital users because EULA means that the game isn't just a lease, but its contents a sub-lease. It is a legal mess of subscription rights management that is more costly in legal fees than a simple package purchased for x copies printed.

All in all, print runs and ownership preserve the product and the integrity of security simply by making it harder to access. The less common the platform, the less lucrative it is to study and crack. Murphy's Law in perspective, the goal isn't security forever because that is impossible. The goal is security long enough for sustainability. Remove credit cards and accounts with sensitive information from the system and you have cut overhead and maintained quality. Physical means the security is the retailer's problem, not the producer's.

5) Trade Shows

If VR, HDR, Tempest Audio Engine, Haptic Feedback, and Immersive Lighting have proven anything, its that immersion technology needs to be experienced in-person, not through streaming. Trade Shows, and the retailers that come with them, are an important part of selling these technologies. Direct-to-Consumer presentations are great, but it only shows the visual output and video games, unlike movies, really depend on that input/output feedback loop. E3 died because video game console makers and video game publishers forgot that they aren't making movies, they make experiences.