Problems inside the game industry, Claims by dev X

[Johnny Awesome]

Vote with your dollars. I won't buy crappy EA games. I own Return of the King, because it's good, but most of that crap I won't touch with a 10-foot pole.

 

[ShootMyMonkey]

Maybe not as much as we like but games like Okami, Jet Set Radio, SOTC, Ico, Kamnari Damancy (spelled wrong), etc. wouldn't have been possible.

You notice those examples happen to be Japanese? In Japan, at least, you've got a real gaming culture. And more traditional style games will sell quite well down there, and games like Katamari fit right in.

In the US, the majority of high-selling genres are those that are derived from simulations.

Once hardware stops increasing so dramatically (maybe in 20 years?)

I don't really think there's a very good chance of this happening, and even if GPU scaling of the hardware as we know it (i.e. rasterizers that do math) hits a wall of sorts, all that says is "time for a paradigm shift." nVidia and ATI probably just have too much vested interest in keeping the cycle of upgrades going and further obfuscating their numbering schemes.

 

[scooby_dooby]

What does he think about live arcade, i dont know. What do you think about it. There certainly is shell space, but there still is pile of money you need ,if you want to go beyond the Snes classics in terms of gameplay as anyone can top them in production values.

I think it's an excellent opportunity for smaller dev's to make money from their games, produce innovative gameplay, and not have monster budgets.

XB Live arcade removes the need for creating discs and distrubuting them via retail stores, so Developers no longer need a huge publisher.

They have this amazing piece of hardware that wil play their games, so here they are getting very low cost distribution with hardware that is super powerful, and an audience that will include every single X360 user with a broadband connection.

It's also an excellent way for Developers to sell their product, the publishers are only interest in GFX cause they think GFX drive sales. However, if you can produce a simplified version of your game, which goes on to be in the top 5 best selling XB Live Arcade games, then you can take that data to the publisher and prove undeniably thatyou have a good idea, and that it will sell.

Maybe, just maybe, one day we will see a killer app from XB Live Arcade....

 

[L_i_n_k]

Welcome to the games industry. Believe me, it sucks from the gamer's standpoint as well. It's sad that the ugliest Xbox 360 game, Tony Hawk Whatever, will probably sell the most because it's a safe game that many casual gamers will flock to

But this is understandable , obvious cashflow cowboy. the only problem is , where does this money go , buying a couple of more competitors. This would be ok if the franchises would continue to even some extend with different company name, but look at the amounts of talentet software companys and franchises this firm has bought, how many of those are still a live?

 

[L_i_n_k]

I think it's an excellent opportunity for smaller dev's to make money from their games, produce innovative gameplay, and not have monster budgets.

XB Live arcade removes the need for creating discs and distrubuting them via retail stores, so Developers no longer need a huge publisher.

They have this amazing piece of hardware that wil play their games, so here they are getting very low cost distribution with hardware that is super powerful, and an audience that will include every single X360 user with a broadband connection.

It's also an excellent way for Developers to sell their product, the publishers are only interest in GFX cause they think GFX drive sales. However, if you can produce a simplified version of your game, which goes on to be in the top 5 best selling XB Live Arcade games, then you can take that data to the publisher and prove undeniably thatyou have a good idea, and that it will sell.

Maybe, just maybe, one day we will see a killer app from XB Live Arcade....

Well yes , exactly my thoughts, but as i need to say something about this , how does low production values and high performance hardware ,with pretty high production value expectations fit together ?. I mean you need to have less pretty graphics than current generation of consoles, without that you cannont go cheap.

 

[scooby_dooby]

But look at the GFX the project offset guys cranked out. Just 3 guys.

It all depends on the game as well, maybe a game could have extremely good art but be quite small, who knows....imagination is certainly not my forte. The fact remains, though, they do have incredible GFX processing capabilities if they wish to use them.

 

[L_i_n_k]

But look at the GFX the project offset guys cranked out. Just 3 guys.

It all depends on the game as well, maybe a game could have extremely good art but be quite small, who knows....imagination is certainly not my forte. The fact remains, though, they do have incredible GFX processing capabilities if they wish to use them.

Ok , by the way do you have more information on that project offset thingie. maybe pictures or video.

 

[scooby_dooby]

projectoffset.com!

however that has been beat to death in other threads, it's just an example that a small team can still make amazing GFX.

 

[L_i_n_k]

It pretty much agrees with my feelings on the industry as a whole. When the last small developer I worked for went under, I considered starting a development company and decided that the business model just didn't make sense.

I probably wouldn't state things quite so strongly as in the article, but in general it's getting harder and harder to survive as a small developer and it basically impossible to sell an original idea.

I think we'll see more and more development moved internal by the big guys, largely because with larger development budgets it's easier to track the spending, you know the money your spending is being spent on your product rather than the one the developer is doing for the other publisher.

I think in a lot of ways it's just the industry growing up, budgets will flatten off at somepoint and there will always be people willing to take chances on original ideas, they'll just be few and far between. But honestly just because an idea is new and inovative doesn't make it good.

There are other models than the one that the article is pushing and there is more room for innovation in them. As a developer you have to conciously decide that your not making a AAA title and your not competing with the big boys and concentrate on something you can sell say 50K copies of and match that budget with your development costs. But no-one wants to build B titles.

What in it did not make sense?. reasons listed in the article?.
What alternative model you see happening in the farseable future?.

 

[Laa-Yosh]

But look at the GFX the project offset guys cranked out. Just 3 guys.

Yeah, they have like, 2 or 3 characters, with who knows how many animation cycles.

Believe me, nextgen level art assets take a LOT of time to produce. And we're not yet talking about fine tuning them.

 

[ERP]

What in it did not make sense?. reasons listed in the article?.
What alternative model you see happening in the farseable future?.

Without getting too ranty

As a developer I want front loaded payment schedule since all my significant costs are upfront. Publishers insist on a backend loaded payment schedule since if they cancel they are less out of pocket.

In order to sign a contract you must be competitive on cost and schedule, which means you bid at or less than what it will actually cost you (betting on royalties to bail you out) and are "inventive" in scheduling.

Almost every small developer working on original property is in breach of contract, because they will miss at least one milestone somewhere, once your in breach the publisher has you by the short and curlies, they can renegotiate royalties and payments whenever they feel like it.

Even if the property is a success you likely don't own it so the publisher is at liberty to have another dev do the sequel or move development internally if you're considered too expensive.

You work from milestone to milestone, which means before you finish one product you need to have already signed another, but you can't sign until you demonstrate that you have the resources ready right now to work on the new title....

Big publishers seem to think you need a team of 20 programmers to build a current gen game, and you have no hope of convincing them that you can actually do it better with 7 or 8 really good people. This in turn drives your cost up, and your back to inventive accounting and scheduling above.

Don't get me wrong there are ways to make money as a small developer, most of them are work for hire, port X to PSP type things or do contract work for a large publisher, and that doesn't honestly interest me.

 

[scooby_dooby]

ERP, what do you think about XB Live Arcade and the potential to sell original games in the $10-20 range without having to sell-out to a major publisher?

In his concusion I noticed that most of the things he is asking for will be provided through XB Live Arcade.

An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz. - check

A business that allows niche product to be commercially successful - check.

profitability with sales of a few tens of thousands of units, not millions. - check

creator control of intellectual property, because creators deserve to own their own work - check

Now, say for example a Developer releases a game that offers a totally new genre, and goes on to be a smash hit. That developer would conveivably have Publishers knockin on the door asking for a sequal, they will have much more leverage with the publishers, and could potentially retain the rights to their original IP while still gaining funding to bring their idea to the next level.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Even if the property is a success you likely don't own it so the publisher is at liberty to have another dev do the sequel or move development internally if you're considered too expensive.

This is something that bothers me. The devs do all the work but the publishers pocket all the cash, no? I mean out of a million copy seller that grosses $50 million in sales, how much does the dev company actually get? I get the impression it's a very small amount, so they won't be in a position to accrue enough wealth to publish their own titles.

There was an interview with Team17 a while back on GI.biz, that had them talking about publishing and developing. They used to publish their own material. That article pointed out how they had an IP (Alien Breed on the consoles, with the CON engine) that was pretty much finished and ready to go, and the publisher pulled out, so it's a useless development.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Well yes , exactly my thoughts, but as i need to say something about this , how does low production values and high performance hardware ,with pretty high production value expectations fit together ?. I mean you need to have less pretty graphics than current generation of consoles, without that you cannont go cheap.

You don't need a large art budget for good quality visuals. A simple game with clever use of quality shaders, post effects and rendering styles can negate the need for complex textures or models. Smart devs will choose an art style that fits their budget. So for example if they want to do a shooter, they might go with a vibrant cartoon renderer rather than an extensively textured and lit urban warzone that will be competing with big budget titles. And a racer will forgo the complex, detailed, realistic models of the GT series with their enormous modelling budgets and instead go for simplistic cutesy cars.

Good design, and good loking games, doesn't need stupid amounts of work. Indeed you can spend lots of time and effort creating game assets that with lousy art direction makes for a diabolical looking game, where a simpler design would have been far better.

 

[scooby_dooby]

This is something that bothers me. The devs do all the work but the publishers pocket all the cash, no? I mean out of a million copy seller that grosses $50 million in sales, how much does the dev company actually get? I get the impression it's a very small amount, so they won't be in a position to accrue enough wealth to publish their own titles..

according to the article at the beginning of this thread, it's about 7% when all is said and done, and out of that 7% you need to pay back the project budget that you were advanced.

 

[scooby_dooby]

J Allard is reading my mind....

"J Allard: Maintaining the lead in online is critical, it's one of the biggest drivers of growth and innovation. Whether you say, crazy new developer with a risky idea and how do they get it out in a world of 10 million dollar production budgets in a risk adverse industry. Our answer: Live Arcade - make a level, put it up there and see what happens, maybe you'll get signed to a publisher after that to make a million dollar version of it at retail and dole it out month over month. It's good for innovation."
http://www.computerandvideogames.com/front_index.php?

 

[MfA]

He seems to have two problems with the industry, lack of innovation ... and not wanting to be a cog in a vast machine. I dont think the first is a big problem, innovation will always slip through the cracks ... movies I want to see are still being made too. The second is his problem

 

[PARANOiA]

It's a very interesting article, and one that has sparked some good discussion here. I'm impressed.

I do think this is just "the way of the world" today, but I also think that that doesn't make it a good thing. That's why more people vote for the "Idol" TV shows than in the general elections

 

[L_i_n_k]

You don't need a large art budget for good quality visuals. A simple game with clever use of quality shaders, post effects and rendering styles can negate the need for complex textures or models. Smart devs will choose an art style that fits their budget. So for example if they want to do a shooter, they might go with a vibrant cartoon renderer rather than an extensively textured and lit urban warzone that will be competing with big budget titles. And a racer will forgo the complex, detailed, realistic models of the GT series with their enormous modelling budgets and instead go for simplistic cutesy cars.

Good design, and good loking games, doesn't need stupid amounts of work. Indeed you can spend lots of time and effort creating game assets that with lousy art direction makes for a diabolical looking game, where a simpler design would have been far better.

Yes its kinda pretty and cheap so perfect for this kind of app, you are right.
Generally i think that all kinds of procedural generation that can save unnessessary work , is a must specially in future titles.

 

[L_i_n_k]

ERP, what do you think about XB Live Arcade and the potential to sell original games in the $10-20 range without having to sell-out to a major publisher?

In his concusion I noticed that most of the things he is asking for will be provided through XB Live Arcade.

An audience that prizes gameplay over glitz. - check

A business that allows niche product to be commercially successful - check.

profitability with sales of a few tens of thousands of units, not millions. - check

creator control of intellectual property, because creators deserve to own their own work - check

Now, say for example a Developer releases a game that offers a totally new genre, and goes on to be a smash hit. That developer would conveivably have Publishers knockin on the door asking for a sequal, they will have much more leverage with the publishers, and could potentially retain the rights to their original IP while still gaining funding to bring their idea to the next level.

It could really be a starting place for new talent and franchises that would normaly stay underground. Furter looked, microsoft would be in a good position for picking those gems and making them to be full fledged products.