INTERVIEW: Here Comes the Rooster

[TheChefO]

Are major publishers destroying the creativity of the games industry? Do you think that’s just flat out a fact?
Well, I don’t know, because you kind of have to distribute the blame equally. I think developers need to get a little more creative about ways to fund themselves and if they have an original idea to get it from proof of concept stage at least so that these big guys feel more comfortable green-lighting it. And then the press—the game magazines, the game websites—tend to cover the obviously huge games a lot more. They beat each other up to cover the same game 85 different ways.

Before we launched, when we went out and did the press tour with a lot of the magazines in San Francisco, everybody is really thrilled to hear we’re back and several of those meetings ended with, “Hey man, this is awesome, what can we do to help?” And I would tell those editors “You can write about original games. You can put them on your covers like you do Tomb Raider 9 or whatever it is.” And that’s the truth. Everybody that cares about this industry has to start thinking about independent developers and original games a little bit more.

And so these Gamecock titles that are coming, they’re like full-out packaged next-generation triple-A games?

Yeah, it was very tempting to get back into [the business] earlier [than we did], because there is a lot of exciting stuff going on with digital distribution. But really, we wanted to come back and go toe-to-toe with Activision, THQ, Ubisoft, any of these guys. We can do big games like they can, we can do the marketing, hopefully do them a little smarter because we’re more nimble. I mean me, Rick [Stults], and Harry [Miller], who are all the founders, have all managed and been the biz guys for independent developers, so that gives us a little bit of a different perspective.

Indie games, just like indie films, have found ways to do things more efficiently and more creatively, so you’re not going to see us doing $30 million games with 200-person teams, just because we don’t believe that that’s the answer. We’re not going to make Die Hard 5 for a $100 million—we’re looking to make The Matrix 1 for $8 million.

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=4738&Itemid=2

 

[Nesh]

Consumers are also to be blamed for this. They pay for uncreative games.

 

[bRoNx]

It’s the same story that [publishers] were saying when the PS2 and Xbox came out. They’re saying that console games are going to cost 10 or $15 million now, and yeah you could do that, but you don’t have to. Halo, Grand Theft Auto, Max Payne—all of these games cost under $5 million to make. And then Halo 2 cost like $22 million to make, because as soon as it [catches on with] one of these huge companies, they just can’t help themselves—everybody in the company wants to attach themselves to the game and basically all this overhead gets attached to the game.

I had no idea these games cost less than $5 mil to make! So why the sudden increase? More marketing? More devs on board? Why not stick to the original team? Did the have to buy/research new tech for the sequals?

This man does have a point, and I hope they can create an $8mil hit, and bring these 'over-spenders' back to reality!

 

[TheChefO]

I'm thinking the rise in cost of development that has been publicized is factoring getting up to speed on the platforms. This time invested as well as dev tools has no doubt been added to create a shock value number and a good reason to increase the standard msrp of the average next-gen game.

I truly hope these guys have success with this model by producing unique, high quality games and bring the recognition to the creators not the publishers as it should be.

They have my attention.:smile:

 

[dobwal]

I had no idea these games cost less than $5 mil to make! So why the sudden increase? More marketing? More devs on board? Why not stick to the original team? Did the have to buy/research new tech for the sequals?

This man does have a point, and I hope they can create an $8mil hit, and bring these 'over-spenders' back to reality!

I remember Halo was originally developed for the Mac. I think targetting such a small audience meant the initial cost of development was probably very low. However, they were bought by MS to put Halo on the Xbox but by then they had created most of the art content and developed most of the engine so additional costs probably revolved around porting the code over to the xbox.

 

[bRoNx]

I remember Halo was originally developed for the Mac. I think targetting such a small audience meant the initial cost of development was probably very low. However, they were bought by MS to put Halo on the Xbox but by then they had created most of the art content and developed most of the engine so additional costs probably revolved around porting the code over to the xbox.

I thought he was referring to the Halo that was released on XBOX & PC, which would've included the port costs/expenses. Why would you need more than the original team to create a sequel? Is it time? Is it more senior level exec's attaching themselves to the project (now that it's a hit) and adding to the costs? I understand that they may want to implement some better tech which would mean R&D or licencing tech from elsewhere, but to suddenly jump from less than $5mil to a sequel costing around $40mil (for Halo), that's insane! Especially when it's on the same machine (not a jump in technology).

Maybe a dev can explain better...

 

[TheChefO]

I thought he was referring to the Halo that was released on XBOX & PC, which would've included the port costs/expenses. Why would you need more than the original team to create a sequel? Is it time? Is it more senior level exec's attaching themselves to the project (now that it's a hit) and adding to the costs? I understand that they may want to implement some better tech which would mean R&D or licencing tech from elsewhere, but to suddenly jump from less than $5mil to a sequel costing around $40mil (for Halo), that's insane! Especially when it's on the same machine (not a jump in technology).

Maybe a dev can explain better...

Halo2 is a bad example though as they had to scrap the game halfway through. They pushed the game tech beyond what the xbox1 could do and had to start over.

Also a potential explanation for the significantly higher costs in sequels to hit games: pay raises

 

[Acert93]

Consumers are also to be blamed for this. They pay for uncreative games.

Question: How are cosumers who don't hang out on geek sites like B3D and don't read a couple gaming magazines a month to know what titles to buy?

It can be a total crap shoot, hence sequals of successful franchises tend to do well.

Solution: Online demos and trailers distributed to every consumer with internet access.

Until consumers can be further exposed to new, creative games it will be difficult for them to jump on board. This is one reason you see new IPs like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed get years of PR, market placement, and press exclusives to build the IPs mindshare long before it launches.

One of the few examples (I can think of right now) of a game with little movement before release that was really successful was Battlefield 1942, and the demo of the game in conjunction with the online aspect of the gameplay and a lot of glowing reviews helped get it going. Without the demo I doubt it would have been a success it is today.

This is one area DLC can be a big factor, in that you can publish a mini-game proof of concept, recoup some R&D, get exposure, and concept/bug test your implimentation with real users. I think Portal, which with HL2 Orange will be v.2 (the first version free online). I wouldn't be surprised if v.3 implimentation became the star of a full features game IF Portal is a success critically/sales. If not, then the concept may remain a mini-game or become just a single element of a broader game.

 

[Nesh]

Question: How are cosumers who don't hang out on geek sites like B3D and don't read a couple gaming magazines a month to know what titles to buy?

It can be a total crap shoot, hence sequals of successful franchises tend to do well.

Solution: Online demos and trailers distributed to every consumer with internet access.

Until consumers can be further exposed to new, creative games it will be difficult for them to jump on board. This is one reason you see new IPs like Gears of War and Assassin's Creed get years of PR, market placement, and press exclusives to build the IPs mindshare long before it launches.

One of the few examples (I can think of right now) of a game with little movement before release that was really successful was Battlefield 1942, and the demo of the game in conjunction with the online aspect of the gameplay and a lot of glowing reviews helped get it going. Without the demo I doubt it would have been a success it is today.

This is one area DLC can be a big factor, in that you can publish a mini-game proof of concept, recoup some R&D, get exposure, and concept/bug test your implimentation with real users. I think Portal, which with HL2 Orange will be v.2 (the first version free online). I wouldn't be surprised if v.3 implimentation became the star of a full features game IF Portal is a success critically/sales. If not, then the concept may remain a mini-game or become just a single element of a broader game.

There are lots of sources out there to look for if they cared. Many of these people can have the same access to info as me and you. But they dont feel like its worth their time. They dont hang out to "geek" forums because they dont care to visit them

I ve tried to talk about some unique games to some friends of mine.

But they dont care really. They are more likely to go for games like Need For Speed, GTA, Fifa, Def Jam, Medal of Honor etc.

And if they happen to get a creative game such as Okami or Shadow of Colossus they might wonder "what was the whole fuss about"

I even tried to open a serious discussion about the gaming industry and the problems developers have to deal with because cost and difficulties increase as technology evolves which is one of the reasons creativity is being saphocated since risks are more.

The answer was "who gives a damn. They are just games and they get lots of money".

I ve tried to show them exceptional games and if I cant, inform about the concept of the game etc.

I showed some creative games which got the "bleh remark" but the generic games got better impressions by the same people. Others if they do reckognise some creativity in a game they will prefer to pass it for insgignificant reasons like "too science fiction, I dont like monsters, I find the idea boring, that looks kiddish" etc.

They want games that put you directly into simple concepts. Shoot and kill, drive and win, play sport etc. If that game has violence or too much acton even the better for them. Violence sells.


Assasin's Creed and Gears of War fortunately maintain some of the elements these people want. But there are many games that try to be too creative and original for the mainstream to care for.

And its sad that excessive PR is needed for such games to be reckognised (and still dont always do). PR also sells bad games. DMC2 for example sold around as much as DMC3, when it clearly had all kinds of gameplay and technical problems found in some of the worst games around. Yet most of those who bought it find it good. Some even love it. It is actually one of the worst games Capcom ever made.

Then we ve got Killzone which got excessive amount of PR. And although it has lots of good elements , showed great potential and interesting ideas the bugs and instability would have killed it if it didnt get the crazy hype. Yet it is still loved and praised by many as one of the best FPS ever. People playied demos of it. Also some even had the honor to be invited in offices to try a preview of the game. UK OPM2 did such a thing. and those who won the invitation praised it.

If a game isnt accompanied by the prober PR, most consumers even if they ever stumble on a creative game they wont show the deserving interest. Unless ofcourse that game maintains enough elements from generic games on top of the creativity.

I really do hope that demo downloads will help eliminate this trend. But I also feel that it might not help enough if these games arent accompanied by enough hype. We have to take into consideration how many will have access or care to have online access through their consoles and also how many of them form objective opinions when they try a game instead of having bias opinions on how a game should be or pre-determined opinions from the media before they even try.

And I am really worried about Heavenly Sword too which doesnt get enough hype. I dont think a demo will help much if Sony doesnt spread news and adverdises it.

What I understood is that people either dont have an opinion of their own or they underestimate the creative side of videogames. I feel that PR controls what sells more than creativity.

 

[Berek]

I find Supreme Commander's creator, Chris Taylor to be a fine example of a drive to shift the industry back into making games for the love of it, and to make creative games.

Let's get away from the redudant FPS, the constant demand for better graphics, and the tight penny pinching that in a lot of cases causes more problems than it is worth.

Check out Chris Taylor's speech at the D.I.C.E. summit here:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=157899

And an interesting upcoming UNIQUE game, SPORE, by Will Wright here:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/f1a18906612a0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

 

[Dregun]

I really wonder if people really understand how much the game industry has grown and that quality has only IMPROVED over time. I know a lot of people get all nostalgic when they think of the experiences they had playing games 5-10 years ago and think "those were the best" when in fact they are mediocre by todays standards. Best boxing game on the NES Mike Tysons Punchout, was it fun..sure, but by todays standards it has no depth no replayablity and was only a single player game. If that game was released today it would get horrible reviews it does not have the "meat" that gamers are accustomed too.

We expect games now to have "value" they have to be worth our money because its all too easy to read reviews and opinions on games in this internet age. Back in the day we only had magazines (which were paid most of the time to give good reviews) to tell the consumer what games are coming and how good those games are going to be. GOW is selling good because the reviews have been Great, the media available on the internet is showing how "good it looks" and the consumer can use that info to decide on that purchase. Wolfenstien, Doom, Heretic those FPS's in their time were considered "Great" games, compare them to GOW, RFOM, Metroid, COD3 and you see how far the games have progressed to give current gamers more value. Each incremental step taken from Wolfenstien3D to GOW although small have always (for the most part) offered increased value over their predecessor.

As far as creativity failing...I call SHENS! Plenty of games have come out over the last 7 years that have changed the way gaming is being done today. Just thinking of Naughty Dogs games alone have shown how new twists have been made to classic style games and how well they play. Future platform games have to compete with Mario's, Jax and Daxter, Ratchet and Clank in order to capture an audience. The fact that it doesn't happen easily shows that the bar has been raised so high what was once a good idea a year ago is now old news.

We give WAY too much credit to games of the past, its no different then the people who complain that new cars are not as reliable as older cars...yet newer cars are lasting 2X as long. Or how people praise older movies, yet by todays standards the acting is so far below par they couldn't pay a studio to shoot that movie.

Creativity isn't something that is achieved easily in todays market because so many people are making games and many ideas have been approved upon so much so that we are only getting incremental advancements each time. To say creativity is dying is a result from peoples perception of what the past really was; nostalgia is a bitch, its a feeling of that "moment" nothing more. Our memories have more then just "experiences" they also carry "feelings" and the combination of those two is what clouds our minds to believing things in our past were better then they actually were.


Dregun -Living in the Now-

 

[inefficient]

I find Supreme Commander's creator, Chris Taylor to be a fine example of a drive to shift the industry back into making games for the love of it, and to make creative games.

Let's get away from the redudant FPS, the constant demand for better graphics, and the tight penny pinching that in a lot of cases causes more problems than it is worth.

Check out Chris Taylor's speech at the D.I.C.E. summit here:
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=157899

And an interesting upcoming UNIQUE game, SPORE, by Will Wright here:
http://www.popsci.com/popsci/technology/f1a18906612a0110vgnvcm1000004eecbccdrcrd.html

Those are both BIG budget games. Especially SPORE. You can't make an indy game like that or sell a concept like that to an investor unless you are a Will Wright or a Chris Taylor. The budget of SPORE alone probably could have funded a dozen indy games.

A game like Far Cry you might consider a redunant game, but it is a better example of a low budget game that became quite successfull. And something probably more along the lines of what Gamecock is looking for.