The Profit/Gameplay Disconnect

Or, the Fatal Flaw With the "Support Monte Cristo" Argument

This article originally appeared on The Next Generation blog at Simtropolis.com

Let me state right off that I don't mean for this post to be inflammatory, or to imply in any way that I am "against" Monte Cristo or Cities XL. I honestly hope that their game will be successful and that many people enjoy it. While I'm not particularly interested in it personally I wish them well, more city-building games on the market can only be a good thing as far as I'm concerned.

What I do want to address is something I've heard a lot on the forums here; the reasoning that goes something like this:

"No one else is making a game right now... we need to support Monte Cristo so they will be able to improve the game in the future!"

There are several problems with this argument that I want to discuss, but first let me talk a little bit about the nature of business.

Commercial game studios are companies, operated for profit. Now, profit isn't necessarily some dirty word that implies snorting coke off a hooker's... um... tummy and laughing at all the suckers that made you rich. It just means, on balance, having enough money to cover your costs with something left over. For a game company, this means being able to pay everyone who made the game and still have enough return to satisfy their investors.

What important to realize about this is that companies must make a profit. It isn't optional, it's not something they choose to prioritize over other things, companies must be profitable to survive. A company's need for profit is much like a person's need for food; when they have enough, they can devote time and energy to other interests, but food absolutely has to be priority number one, or they die.

I think a lot of people fail to realize this when they say: "Why don't they concentrate on improving the game instead of trying to make money!!!" The simple answer is, they can't. When faced with a choice between profitability and some other priority (making a polished game, for example) they literally have no choice but profitability. Any company that didn't make this choice would be bankrupt and not making any games at all.

To sum up, the main point I want to make is this: For a commercial game studio, game quality will always be secondary to profitability. Now, of course, a wise company (think Blizzard) realizes that in the long term quality will increase profitability, and plans carefully to achieve it. But even for them, quality is only a tool to achieve their larger goal: profits. If faced with a choice, any for-profit company must put its profits first.

So, what does this mean for the argument I described at the beginning? Basically, the flaw with this line of reasoning is that it's a horribly inefficient means of getting a result. Regardless of whether or not Monte Cristo does decide to reinvest their revenue from Cities XL sales and the Planet Offer in new game features (their intentions in this regard are fairly suspect in my eyes, but that's a different issue,) you are getting a pretty terrible return for your "investment." Why? Because, even if Monte Cristo did its utmost, they still must give precedence to their profitability before they start spending money on game improvements. Furthermore, there is no accountability; you may think you are investing in game improvements, but the company is free to spend your money on whatever they see fit.

Think of it this way... would that make sense for any other kind of product? Would you drink a soft drink you didn't like, in the hope that the company might use the profits to improve it? Would you buy a poorly designed car in order to give the company a chance to do better next time? Of course not. Why then would you buy a game you don't want to play in the hopes of a better one "later"?

Contrast that with a system in which you are investing, directly, in game features; with a non-profit/open source development model, you are not only contributing 100% to game development (that is, there is no need to set aside anything for profit), but you actually have a say in the direction that development takes. Furthermore, unlike a commercial release, you would be free to take the end product and modify it as you see fit. An investment is something made in the hopes of some return; if the return we want is a better game, why not invest in a game, instead of a game company's profits?