Piracy

[Waldorf and Statler]

Who is this David Jaffe character? And how can he even make a statement concerning video games about how much he loves Apple?

 

You mean the same Apple that designs a device, see where it can improve/what they can add to it from the beginning, so they can make yearly iterations of the device for years to come? The one that doesn't allow practically anything third party to do stuff for them?

 

You know who is the Apple of video gaming right now? At least in terms of iterations with shit that should have been there to begin with? Capcom. Let's release a fighter game. Oh hey, next year let's add those characters we didn't feel like adding before, then charging like $40. People will think it's a bargain, when this could've easily been DLC for like 15 or so bucks.

 

I understand that if Apple is doing anything right, it is user-experience. And at least the quote does state that. But I don't want ANYTHING Apple to do with my gaming. The ioS store is nice, but an iPhone has its limitations on gaming. If gaming is going from hypercomplex story rpg's to "tap the screen whenever you see a bump" games, then gaming would be devolving.

Edited February 6, 2012 by Waldorf And Statler

[fuchikoma]

Actually, Tetris is a screwed up case. Alexey Pajitnov made the game in 1985, but didn't see money for it until 1996. I watched a documentary on it last night. There was a lot of uncertainty how the rights for that game worked.

 

The movie industry has the ability to make sure those involved in production don't get paid down to a science. Did you know Return of the Jedi never made a profit? And the Harry Potter movies? Who'd have thought! They break even perfectly and no residuals are paid out. In cases like that, I'd make the rare exception and say there is probably a moral benefit to pirating these movies, as opposed to supporting exploitative studios.

[WTF]

Well why don't contracts allow it? Why is it considered a-okay for you to make a game that the publisher will be getting revenue on 10, 20, 30 years later while you are out on the streets unemployed? Seems a very shitty end of the stick to be given considering your the ones that actually made the game in the first place. Probably explains the large rise of indies of late actually. Why work for some company for overtime, stress, etc and eventual firing, when you can work your own, be your own publisher, and for as long as your game is on sale you'll derive the revenue from it?

 

Also it was my understanding that artists, singers, actors etc do get paid royalty. Not like the beatles (as was the example) were paid £10 an hour then kicked out the door while the record studio racked in the cash off the resulting album. That's not how they became millionaires.

 

Actually not every artist makes insane royalties on what they sell. It's usually between nothing and a mediocre percentage. In the music industry, it generally works this way the label gets the most money out of distribution. For an artist to make that money they need to make their own label. Now even if this label comes under a major record company they'll make a decent earning as compared to being signed on to another label. However for the music industry artists make the most money out of live performances. A live show brings an artist an insane amount of money and most of it goes to themselves and their management. Lets look at it this way, in the past 5-10 years there's been under 50 singles that have sold a million in the UK. But even artists that have barely done 500k make more money than those singles purely through endorsements, partnerships, live performances and things like that.

 

And contracts don't work that way because when you get hired to the industry even if you've worked on a product doesn't mean you get credited for it. Games are much more lenient than the film industry that at least most people do get credited. In a film, the principal and the first production crew staff get credited. The rest it's upto the producers to decide if they should or shouldn't. There's at least 50 VFX artists per film that wouldn't be credited because it's how it works. They have to rely on their employers and showreels to get new work when their short-term contracts expire.

 

You may think it's the shitty end of the stick. But an individual isn't the developer, a company is a developer. In fact in most media firms, publishing and distribution firms prefer to deal with firms because a firm can be sued and there's some chance of some money but it's difficult to sue an individual. Therefore a tiny indie setup might not really get a publishing contract from a major publisher unless they're willing to take the risk.

 

As for ownership, if the creator of the ip doesn't care and wants to give it away it's their call. But most importantly it is the call of the person who runs the developing studio as to whether they should push for ownership of an ip or not. IPs are a dime a dozen, you can create a million space fantasies, medieval fiction and the like and with the right marketing people will buy it. Most creatives are aware of this, so when they are unsure if what they have is a surefire hit they just sell it for the money they need to get the product out and feed themselves and fund future ventures. People think in the short-term and publishers know it can be a risk. (it's why new ips are almost always publisher owned) because they're investing their money.

 

Here's the simplest way to put it. Yes someone did work really hard for this and they might not see future profits from it. But that's the risk they take to get a game out, to keep the company and their lives going. The people who make the games sometimes are less invested in the ips than the people who play them. They are invested in the games but the ips. Not really. Also if someone is going to invest money in you they would like to see returns on their investment. Why should any publisher give a studio a couple of million when they can't see guaranteed returns. They might as well invest in another field or area and see their moneyback. Ultimately it's returns of investments. While we can call faceless publishers evil they too have people who need jobs and have to support families and the like. Publishers and developers both need to survive. The real problem facing the media particularly gaming are analysts, investors and gaming journos who publish information before the consumers can read them.

 

Gaming enthusiast medium is technically far more irresponsible and sees to the demise of studios and lack of jobs more than publishers and developers themselves. The whole game/gamestation thing for instance - what use was it to the consumer for them to publish this info that the company would definitely die soon. Companies lose credit assurance it's not abnormal - happens everyday (I used to work as a financial consultant and getting new creditors and investors for companies like this was Tuesday) . but to publish that info basically leads to a climate where you kill consumer confidence. So people will be afraid to shop in the stores for fear of not getting the products that they ordered thus reducing spending in their stores which would lead to the company being unable to sustain itself and thus creating a self-fulfilling prophecy.

 

@fuchikoma: lol I don't want to comment on the film industry since technically I'm a part of it though not working for a 'studio' per se. However yes you are unlikely to see profit participation from certain studios. Columbia is decent in that regards and if you really want to see profits faster you'd work on the indie scene. Also every budget is inflated between 5 and 15% what is revealed as the budget is almost always the inflated value(there are exceptions) and I know this personally.

Edited February 6, 2012 by WTF

[Battra92]

When you work for a company you are giving up your rights to any creative design you do on your own while working for the company. This is expected. You are bartering your creativity and labor for a wage or salary agreed upon by both employer and employee.

 

If you don't like that model, you are free to start a sole proprietorship or work for an employee owned business like King Arthur Flour.

 

I really am not seeing ANY moral high ground in pirating a game because it's original devs sold it to another publisher.

[deanb]

I'm not saying the publishers shouldn't get anything, but I don't see why they should get everything. If there were no developers to work for them then they'd have no games to sell now, let alone 30 years down the line. Hard to make money from nothing. Can't see the board room guys sitting down and coding a game themselves. Yes I know they have people to feed, but the publishers aren't laying themselves off, it's the studio and all it's employees that get laid off once the game is wrapped up.

 

Look at THQ and MS. THQ are currently said to be in the shitter, THQ have closed several studios down over the past year or so. MS is getting shat on for a lack of new IP. MS also closed down several studios. Ensemble was closed down and went on to become Robot Entertainment which developed and published Orcs Must Die. The power isn't exactly in the publishers hands any more, seems stupid to work employees under such restrictive terms and with no guarantee of long term employment either.

 

IP may be a dime a dozen, but it's hard to turn an idea into cash unless you've developers to make it into a product you can sell to consumers.

[Battra92]

I'm not saying the publishers shouldn't get anything, but I don't see why they should get everything. If there were no developers to work for them then they'd have no games to sell now, let alone 30 years down the line. Hard to make money from nothing.

 

See, this is the sort of Capitalist vs the Workers argument that people have been making since Marx. The problem is that it's a fundamentally flawed one due to the fact that the developers are not slaves; they are employees or contractors. There is nothing stopping them from being independent studios.

 

Can't see the board room guys sitting down and coding a game themselves. Yes I know they have people to feed, but the publishers aren't laying themselves off, it's the studio and all it's employees that get laid off once the game is wrapped up.

 

Companies do it all the time. You hire workers as contractors for a project. They then freelance to another studio or project. Unless you're a developer with lots of projects going on at once (like Nintendo) you're essentially paying people to be idle between projects.

 

To use a non-gaming example, say I have a company and we're set to build a new warehouse. Now, most likely I would hire contractors to then build said warehouse and then after the building is done, I don't need a huge crew. Unless I have another warehouse to build, they are dead weight to the company. They are now free to build something for another person.

 

Look at THQ and MS. THQ are currently said to be in the shitter, THQ have closed several studios down over the past year or so. MS is getting shat on for a lack of new IP. MS also closed down several studios. Ensemble was closed down and went on to become Robot Entertainment which developed and published Orcs Must Die. The power isn't exactly in the publishers hands any more, seems stupid to work employees under such restrictive terms and with no guarantee of long term employment either.

 

Why is it stupid? Why should a company guarantee long term employment to a developer if it can't guarantee a business need for that person. Companies are in business to make money; employing people is merely a side effect. You can say it's not fair, but really, what is?

[TheMightyEthan]

Sorry, wrote this about 45 mins ago but then got on the phone and forgot to actually post it.

 

I'm not saying the publishers shouldn't get anything, but I don't see why they should get everything.

 

Here's why: Developers get paid (whether salaried or hourly or by a roadmap or however) a set amount, whether or not the game is successful (putting aside abuses such as withholding paychecks which are a completely separate issue). The publisher fronts the cash and takes the risk of the game flopping. The devs give up the potential to profit big if the game goes big in exchange for guaranteed payment if the game fails. Wanting to get paid up front for the work AND receive a profit share later is wanting to have your cake and eat it too, and only studios with a fairly sure thing are going to be able to swing that kind of deal.

Edited February 6, 2012 by TheMightyEthan

[Hot Heart]

It's part of the reason why a lot of people in the creative industries want to go independent and own IPs. I'm not sure if it's a recent shift overall, but digital distribution has made it much easier for game developers to go independent. I imagine music artists can find ways to make that work too. It's just it can be quite a big risk.

[Battra92]

Congrats Ethan! You have passed Capitalism 101!

 

 

No sarcasm, that was a pretty eloquent way to explain it.

 

[deanb]

I'm not saying the publishers shouldn't get anything, but I don't see why they should get everything. If there were no developers to work for them then they'd have no games to sell now, let alone 30 years down the line. Hard to make money from nothing.

See, this is the sort of Capitalist vs the Workers argument that people have been making since Marx. The problem is that it's a fundamentally flawed one due to the fact that the developers are not slaves; they are employees or contractors. There is nothing stopping them from being independent studios.

As I stated, many are becoming independent studios. Publishers don't have the grip they used to, the tools to make and publish your own game are there. If you want to make and release a game you don't need to got to the big publishers like you used to.

 

Can't see the board room guys sitting down and coding a game themselves. Yes I know they have people to feed, but the publishers aren't laying themselves off, it's the studio and all it's employees that get laid off once the game is wrapped up.

Companies do it all the time. You hire workers as contractors for a project. They then freelance to another studio or project. Unless you're a developer with lots of projects going on at once (like Nintendo) you're essentially paying people to be idle between projects.

Or making DLC, or another game etc. Studios aren't "freelance". And Nintendo are a publisher.

The workers at a studio don't put out the game then sit on their thumbs until months later when a new title is announced. For example when Pandemic was shut down they weren't doing nothing, they were working on BFIII. With Ensemble they theoretically had AoE4 in the works. I can't really see it being cheap to finish a game, lay off the entire studio, then build a new studio to make the sequel, lay them off rinse n repeat.

 

Look at THQ and MS. THQ are currently said to be in the shitter, THQ have closed several studios down over the past year or so. MS is getting shat on for a lack of new IP. MS also closed down several studios. Ensemble was closed down and went on to become Robot Entertainment which developed and published Orcs Must Die. The power isn't exactly in the publishers hands any more, seems stupid to work employees under such restrictive terms and with no guarantee of long term employment either.

Why is it stupid? Why should a company guarantee long term employment to a developer if it can't guarantee a business need for that person. Companies are in business to make money; employing people is merely a side effect. You can say it's not fair, but really, what is?

It's stupid because you're offering shitty terms? No job security? Terrible overtime conditions? Stressful deadlines? It doesn't matter if you've done a good job, doesn't matter if you've made a game that's raked in millions, come up with a really awesome shooting system or whatever. It probably explains the constant sequels with barest lick of paint, the lack of innovation within the AAA game space, etc. Why bother putting in your all when you'll probably be all laid off when the game comes out anyway?

 

 

p.s sorry for apparently being a marxist.

 

edit:

Sorry, wrote this about 45 mins ago but then got on the phone and forgot to actually post it.

 

I'm not saying the publishers shouldn't get anything, but I don't see why they should get everything.

Here's why: Developers get paid (whether salaried or hourly or by a roadmap or however) a set amount, whether or not the game is successful (putting aside abuses such as withholding paychecks which are a completely separate issue). The publisher fronts the cash and takes the risk of the game flopping. The devs give up the potential to profit big if the game goes big in exchange for guaranteed payment if the game fails. Wanting to get paid up front for the work AND receive a profit share later is wanting to have your cake and eat it too, and only studios with a fairly sure thing are going to be able to swing that kind of deal.

So those making sequels like COD get their cake and eat it then yes? And what of the games where the publisher isn't fronting the cash, just publishing?

How often do games fail though? Also surely that's the publishers problem, they're the publisher, they publish the game. They're the ones that get the revenue from the game, surely they're the ones having their cake(and the recipe) and eating it? It's not really the fault of the developers if the publishers fail on the end of marketing and publishing the game.

If the publishers think the game is going to fail, why are they funding and publishing it?

[Thorgi Duke of Frisbee]

http://www.destructoid.com/jimquisition-when-piracy-becomes-theft-221169.phtml

Shame on you, pedophile burglars!

[Johnny]

It's amazing his Jim Sterling manages to sound like an extremist no matter which side of the fence he's on. That takes some special talent.

[TheMightyEthan]

So those making sequels like COD get their cake and eat it then yes? And what of the games where the publisher isn't fronting the cash, just publishing?

How often do games fail though? Also surely that's the publishers problem, they're the publisher, they publish the game. They're the ones that get the revenue from the game, surely they're the ones having their cake(and the recipe) and eating it? It's not really the fault of the developers if the publishers fail on the end of marketing and publishing the game.

If the publishers think the game is going to fail, why are they funding and publishing it?

 

Yes, it's the publisher's problem if the game fails, that's the whole point: the publisher carries the risk of the game failing, so they also get a higher cut if it doesn't. It's a balance. And the publisher isn't going to publish a game that it thinks is going to fail, but nothing in business is a sure thing, so it's a big risk. Look at THQ for God's sake.

[deanb]

So the publishers think the game is good enough to throw $30million+ at, but still feel it's enough of a failure to take on the perpetual revenue, the IP, etc as "compensation".

 

I'm not buying it. It's a bit like betting at a dog race, and if the dog doesn't win you get to take it home to eat. Even if the dog does win it's still a 50:50 chance it'll get a bullet in it's head or not and you take home the winnings regardless. Shit deal for the dog either way.

[Faiblesse Des Sens]

"Still feel it's enough of a failure"

 

You should really look up what "risk" means in a business sense.

[deanb]

I think first I should become rich enough to not care about $30million going down the shit hole. If you think the project you're spending $30million on (that's a fucking lot of money, just to reinforce that here, and that's more the starting end of the pool, not the $150million TOR end of the pool) is potentially going to flop, why are you spending $30million on it? As has been stated there's plenty fish in the IP Sea, you can put your money on another more sure fire horse.

[madbassman39]

I think first I should become rich enough to not care about $30million going down the shit hole. If you think the project you're spending $30million on (that's a fucking lot of money, just to reinforce that here, and that's more the starting end of the pool, not the $150million TOR end of the pool) is potentially going to flop, why are you spending $30million on it? As has been stated there's plenty fish in the IP Sea, you can put your money on another more sure fire horse.

 

Actually, this is the exact reason we will see MW4, BF4, GoW4 (either GoW I'm talking about they are both going to have a #4), Halo 4, and so on. New IPs are so risky, at $30 million dollars, where as established and good IPs are less risky at twice that or more. This is why, in my opinion, the gaming industry is freaking out about piracy. They can hardly afford these games to flop on their own merit, let alone someone not pay for the game. The problem then comes to, how does one deal with the amount of money put into a game? Re-releases are easing the pain of new game funding, along with arcade like games.

 

Games are only going to get more and more expensive (like hollywood) and we are going to see more and more sequels/prequels/spinoffs (like hollywood) because of the cost and risk.

 

EDIT: Re-read, was way off topic, took it back

 

Of course, this could have been your point all along, and I just didn't catch on, and if that's the case than ignore my derp-y post.

Edited February 6, 2012 by madbassman39

[excel_excel]

http://www.destructo...ft-221169.phtml

Shame on you, pedophile burglars!

 

My God......he looks just like a darts player here. You know what I want to see, a muscular darts player. A guy with a really veiny throwing arm.

 

Anyway, that was certainly less fruitful then his last video on piracy and copyright. Seemed to be more of an excuse to say 'ohohoo paedophile burglars that's a good one!'

[WTF]

I don't think you quite get how risks and investments work when it's not an individual financier. If a company that's not an investment firm but a publisher or producer of goods is willing to invest in a product then they need to have returns of some kind. They aren't going to write off that investment but will try to salvage whatever they can.

Firstly all these models and descriptions work on the assumption that all these companies have been around and will be around forever; when in fact with the exception of a few most will die out due to the vagaries of human taste and culture.

 

Firstly the issue coming out here is that we're mixing up individuals and corporations. Developers are also usually companies and thus by definition corporations or to be extremely precise they are usually limited liability companies. Most developers aren't a 5 man team working in a garage but a company that has anywhere between 25 and 500 people. That's practically a decent sized company. When you work for a company that's of that size regardless of the industry you work in, you do not expect to be paid beyond the tenure of your job. IPs don't work the way that because you created something or worked on the creation of something you are perpetually owed something.

 

For instance you have a friend who 'worked' on a project that you were overseeing and while he/she contributed something to the project for them it was just a job and once it's done they move on to the next. People cannot expect to be entitled for what is essentially a job that they were contracted to do. If they don't do it, someone else will.

However if you were the one that came up with the idea then it depends on the 'sell'. If your idea is a surefire hit and publishers are convinced of your ip they will offer you either a decent monetary compensation or part ownership of the ip or even profit-participation. You don't usually get this until you've achieved some recognition. It's the case for any career.

 

Publishers try to own ips in most cases because developers - talent and companies are unstable. They spend a huge amount of capital investing in a project, if it collapses they try to salvage what they can in terms of assets because this investment comes from profits and capital. Generally when you run a company that's past break-even you work on profits and credits. You do not work on running capital as running capital keeps the employees, buildings and other infrastructural capacities. You've always got to make sure you have that on you else you'll be forced to run at a lower efficiency. When companies publish uncertain ips they are taking these risks. Now once a product is sold and it's gained some mindshare and marketshare the publisher is able to take more risks and publish more games like this by hiring developers to make similar games and carry on those ips. Because these products not only increase profits but also grow companies - it's a positive and negative thing on many perspectives : negative particularly if the growth is too fast and uncontrolled and positive because the ips that succeed will always find new homes. So here we have the publishers who want to continue with an ip and similarish products.

Now lets take the developers side, they are the creatives. For most of them to continue making the same game forever is incredibly tiring. They want to take risks on the creative side. Most of the time they wouldn't have the money to do this since they are hired to do a set job and honestly not every idea is actually good or feasible - gamers are a fluctuating market and the one thing that's very true about gamers is that they do not like formulas to be tampered with much. Publishers know this, but developers don't want to do this since they know that they can hit on a formula that gamers could enjoy. So it's a battle of keeping the group. When individuals working for developers tire of working for a company they leave. Mind you, most people only have contracts for as long as a project is on. In the film, gaming and certain IT sectors people are usually hired on a contract basis. Companies do not have an obligation to keep them on after that - if they person is good they'd like to keep them on but otherwise they can leave. Sometimes developers end up with sub-par talent or people who don't necessarily get along. Other times simply due to issues a company comes across trouble and is forced to shut down. Developers aren't always the financially savvy firms. Most of the time due to some reason or the other after a point they just fail. Publishers try to keep the ip because when companies fall apart like that ips and everything they own will temporarily be in limbo and it could be a long wait. Reviving dead ips is a challenge. It's better to create a new ip than revive something that's been dead for over 10-15 years. It isn't the publishers responsibility to keep the developer afloat unless they own them and so publishers try to buy out developers to either make sure they run right or just to keep the assets and properties. Sometimes even that's not enough. If a ship's sinking you can't always keep it afloat.

 

Now when we speak of independent developers, they achieve success and usually they are small teams where relatively small returns is good enough for them. Sometimes they can achieve breakout success like Persson did with minecraft. Often they just make enough to be profitable enough to make their next ventures. Here's where the thing works out. A game with a budget of 40k made by 5 people and earns 200k is perfectly fine. It's more than enough for them to keep making things and eventually they'll get bigger and their projects get bigger and they'll enter the other cycle.

 

The reason why THQ and others failed is simple. The previous generation we had several mid-tier midbudget games that were cheap. Developers invested a few million and sales of a million were excellent because it net them between 10 and 20 even after going through distribution channels. What happened in the past 10 years was that the companies that were successful invested a lot more in their games. Even if they invested 50Million they would get back 150 million in games like CoD. Sure it's only 3 times that amount whereas the 40k to 200k is like 5 times the amount. However 100Million and 160k are entirely different amounts. Publishers and developers both saw that happening. They wanted in on that action. It's the reason why they invested a lot of money into their products and went bankrupt.

Here's a comparison that helps. Saints Row had a budget of 35Million and it went on to sell 3.8Million to date which makes it profitable (Even though based on earnings it seems like nearly 2Million came via reduced sales and pricedrops). Uncharted games are usually budget under 20Million and UC3 shipped about 4Million and has seen sales of over 3million which makes it more profitable.

Now publishers aren't all evil, when sales are really good for internal studios they give pretty decent bonuses and for external studios they give them a percentage of sales. One of the reasons why Insomniac obviously went multiplat is because the truth is they expanded and the resistance and ratchet and clank games were not giving them the sales they had hoped for this generation. They don't mind leaving that ip at Sony and working on new ips and EA gives them control of their new ip because of pedigree (at least I believe they own their ip in this case).

 

Several developers have closed shop, sold ips and done all sorts of things in the past 20 years that publishers were forced to take control of the situation. How many games can't be released today because of licensing issues (look at PSX titles) ? How many games may never exist again because companies fell apart (ips owned by Infrogames and Interplay) and the ips went to limbo and even if revived wouldn't do well (e.g. Shenmue, Homeworld,etc)? Publishers never sought control of ips initially but developers chose to have multiple publishing partners to publish their games and when the devs died out different companies hold publishing rights that it's next to impossible to release them sometimes. At times it's due to things like music as in kingdom hearts which is one of the reasons why it'll be a longtime before you see a kingdom hearts game sold digitally (I believe the singer has the rights to all digital publishing rights for her song regardless of media and since she had a big spat with Disney it's an issue and Square Enix being the dev-pub can't really do much there since Disney is also a pub-licencee).

 

Also sometimes some projects just get so ridiculously expensive because of elongated development times that it's pretty difficult to make them profitable.

There's the one thing that I did not mention that needs to be mentioned here - most developer companies are limited liability companies and are limited to the value of the company which is the investment capital of the firm or whatever the stated capital is. So when a publisher takes the risk they know that all they can get back is whatever was contracted to them and if the company was bankrupt whatever they are worth. It is a pretty big risk because there's no guarantee and in a lot of cases they can bring not one but two companies down if things go very south and both aren't very big players. I think something of the sort almost happened to SouthPeak but I'm not entirely certain so I'll leave it at that.

 

It isn't a simple case of they made the game so they should get perpetual money off of it.

 

p,s: A dog race wouldn't be the best comparison . Think of it like horse racing, the publisher is the person who bought the horse, the jockey could be the one who spotted the horse or just excels at being a jockey. If the horse wins everyone gets something, if the horse loses the owner can decide if they want to keep the jockey or not; they'll pay them for the race and whatever they owed them but since they bought the horse they get to keep the horse. The jockey isn't necessarily under their permanent employ.

[Battra92]

As I stated, many are becoming independent studios. Publishers don't have the grip they used to, the tools to make and publish your own game are there. If you want to make and release a game you don't need to got to the big publishers like you used to.

 

So why are you bitching again?

 

 

Or making DLC, or another game etc. Studios aren't "freelance". And Nintendo are a publisher.

The workers at a studio don't put out the game then sit on their thumbs until months later when a new title is announced. For example when Pandemic was shut down they weren't doing nothing, they were working on BFIII. With Ensemble they theoretically had AoE4 in the works. I can't really see it being cheap to finish a game, lay off the entire studio, then build a new studio to make the sequel, lay them off rinse n repeat.

 

Neither you nor I can say that since we don't work for the studio nor do we have access to their balance sheets. Sometimes cutting people is necessary.

 

It's stupid because you're offering shitty terms? No job security? Terrible overtime conditions? Stressful deadlines? It doesn't matter if you've done a good job, doesn't matter if you've made a game that's raked in millions, come up with a really awesome shooting system or whatever. It probably explains the constant sequels with barest lick of paint, the lack of innovation within the AAA game space, etc. Why bother putting in your all when you'll probably be all laid off when the game comes out anyway?

 

Work sucks. That's a fact of life. This isn't slave labor. After all, there are oodles of people lining up to work for free (as interns) for game companies. When supply of labor outstrips demand, why pay more for your workers? The market decides the cost of everything, including labor.

 

We're also in a pretty shitty economy. Studios are being very conservative with their money and are betting on what they think are sure bets and aren't going much outside their comfort zones. Hollywood has been doing this for years and outside of a few indies here and there, most movies are cookie cutter shit, just like most games these days are cookie cutter FPS shit.

 

So those making sequels like COD get their cake and eat it then yes? And what of the games where the publisher isn't fronting the cash, just publishing?

How often do games fail though? Also surely that's the publishers problem, they're the publisher, they publish the game. They're the ones that get the revenue from the game, surely they're the ones having their cake(and the recipe) and eating it? It's not really the fault of the developers if the publishers fail on the end of marketing and publishing the game.

If the publishers think the game is going to fail, why are they funding and publishing it?

 

So ... why do you hate publishers? I'm not getting that. Why are their jobs worth less than those of the developers?

 

Games fail all the time. Sometimes a studio is able to absorb the cost and sometimes they can't. Most of the time when publishers fund a game it's to make a profit. Sometimes they lower their expectations and release something on a budget. Sometimes smaller scale can make bags of money, sometimes big productions can lose tons of cash.Even the experts get it wrong some times.

[deanb]

If the horse wins the person that bought the horse gets everything. The Jockey was paid the £100 for that race no matter if the horse wins or loses. Which of course isn't a very good incentive to make the jockey do well. He goes home with £100 regardless, and no guarantee he'll be in the next race whether he gives it his all or just gently jostles the horse around the track. Horse and a dog race is still not a very good analogy because it assumes only one of the horses/games can win. It's more like they all win if they pass the finish post. But sometimes a horse breaks a leg, or sometimes the horse owner shoots the horse half way around the track. Or even forgets he owns the horse and fails to tell anyone he's put this horse in the race. Oh and this is an immortal horse which you can put out in many races, and even if it doesn't finish the race the first time you can make it run the race later on.

 

I feel terrible because you wrote so much (and I read it all), but there's not much to respond with. Mainly cos I knew much of what you wrote already :/ (in fact to a degree I'm unsure if you're responding to me or a general refresher for everyone).

 

Yes games can be expensive to make, but I rarely see any that are major major flops, and with the advent of digital sales it's not like it's impossible to recoup the costs. You're not printing out 1million discs and hoping to get everything in on the first few weeks, printing out some "platinum" re-release later if it does well. Now you put it out and you have infinite goods, it never goes off sale unless you take it off sale. SE posted their finanical statements other day but unfortunately "digital entertainment" = all games, not just digitally released stuff, i.e PSN Classics AKA FFVII-IX. Otherwise I'd have had some cool info on just how much they're making from 15 year old games.

 

http://www.gamasutra...eloper_tim_.php

I was reading this earlier, it's somewhat relevant, especially around end of page3/top of page 4 onwards. Mainly how the studio has become modular post-brutal legend and can deal with XBLA/PSN/Phone/re-release/kinect/upwards type games. There's no reason why having a minor "flop"(1.4million) should be the end of a studio. And it also shows that studios don't need to be either a) always making AAA games b ) always making $30million risks either.

 

edit:

Or making DLC, or another game etc. Studios aren't "freelance". And Nintendo are a publisher.

The workers at a studio don't put out the game then sit on their thumbs until months later when a new title is announced. For example when Pandemic was shut down they weren't doing nothing, they were working on BFIII. With Ensemble they theoretically had AoE4 in the works. I can't really see it being cheap to finish a game, lay off the entire studio, then build a new studio to make the sequel, lay them off rinse n repeat.

Neither you nor I can say that since we don't work for the studio nor do we have access to their balance sheets. Sometimes cutting people is necessary.

As just mentioned: We do have access to their budgets. EA especially, they've actually got mentions of all their closures even in current reports (well I say current, nothing for this past year yet. Latest reports). It's seemingly more profitable to lay off studios than have them continue making more games. Then again making more games costs $30million a pop, but with the current market they can infinitely publish the already made games at no extra expense.

 

It's stupid because you're offering shitty terms? No job security? Terrible overtime conditions? Stressful deadlines? It doesn't matter if you've done a good job, doesn't matter if you've made a game that's raked in millions, come up with a really awesome shooting system or whatever. It probably explains the constant sequels with barest lick of paint, the lack of innovation within the AAA game space, etc. Why bother putting in your all when you'll probably be all laid off when the game comes out anyway?

Work sucks. That's a fact of life. This isn't slave labor. After all, there are oodles of people lining up to work for free (as interns) for game companies. When supply of labor outstrips demand, why pay more for your workers? The market decides the cost of everything, including labor.

We're also in a pretty shitty economy. Studios are being very conservative with their money and are betting on what they think are sure bets and aren't going much outside their comfort zones. Hollywood has been doing this for years and outside of a few indies here and there, most movies are cookie cutter shit, just like most games these days are cookie cutter FPS shit.

Battra, working for free is slave labour. It's kinda the definition: all work no pay. Also maybe the labour outstrips demand because there's all these developers without work cos their studio got closed? Maybe something to it there. Though as previously mentioned many, e.g Robot Entertainment, are making their own independent studios.

Closing studios just seems a bit like killing your golden goose. You keep the goose, it continues to lay golden eggs. Some may be bronze or silver instead, but it's shit tons more eggs than no goose will get you.

 

So those making sequels like COD get their cake and eat it then yes? And what of the games where the publisher isn't fronting the cash, just publishing?

How often do games fail though? Also surely that's the publishers problem, they're the publisher, they publish the game. They're the ones that get the revenue from the game, surely they're the ones having their cake(and the recipe) and eating it? It's not really the fault of the developers if the publishers fail on the end of marketing and publishing the game.

If the publishers think the game is going to fail, why are they funding and publishing it?

So ... why do you hate publishers? I'm not getting that. Why are their jobs worth less than those of the developers?

 

Games fail all the time. Sometimes a studio is able to absorb the cost and sometimes they can't. Most of the time when publishers fund a game it's to make a profit. Sometimes they lower their expectations and release something on a budget. Sometimes smaller scale can make bags of money, sometimes big productions can lose tons of cash.Even the experts get it wrong some times.

I don't hate publishers (well..the idea of publishers at least). I've never once said they're worth less than the developers, I said I don't get why they're worth infinitely more. Publishers have money and connections, that's it. Connections don't matter no more and money can come from anywhere. But only some folks can program, or animate, or model. The system seems to be if you have $30million then you get rewarded with $200million. If you're the one with the skills to turn $30million of money into $200million of product, you get given jack shit of that. $30million doesn't turn into $200million on it's own, I find it absurd the idea that just cos you have money you get to claim all rights to whatever money that turns into at the end too. You get your $30million back, then you share a cut of the $170million with the rest of the developers. Simple.

[Cyber Rat]

http://www.destructo...ft-221169.phtml

Shame on you, pedophile burglars!

 

Maybe one day I'll learn not to give this guy or his videos/pages hits... Fuck curiosity.

[WTF]

Oh don't mind me, I tend to write a lot especially when I'm distracted and take longer like right now when I got caught up on the phone thanks to work -.-

 

Actually several games have been quite disastrous. I'm betting at least 50% of rebellion's games this generation flopped. Several games have flopped is why studios such as bizarre creations, realtimeworlds, etc closed down. THQ shut down the guys who made de blob 2 because it was a massive failure and just failed to move units. There's plenty of major failures where games didn't make their investments. I remember back in 2000 Alice and Undying flopped - basically one flopped and the other flopped since they realised this wasn't going to sell enough and cut marketing on it. Honestly I'm surprised EA even tried to go ahead with Alice 2. While it wasn't a major flop I'm pretty sure they're expecting a longtail via PC DD for it to be profitable (maybe console DD as well).

 

We have had several games lose money because publishers and developers took risks, which the audience didn't react well to Thing is certain genres are niche and if devs and publishers realised that and cut the budget down it would work better. I'm sure for instance Twisted Metal will be decently profitable if it sells around 500k since it was a team of 35 over 3 years. But even though team Ico is about 30 members due to 7 years dev time I doubt The Last Guardian will be profitable unless it sells by name and honestly I doubt it'll cross the million barrior.

 

You don't need to print 1 Million discs for a game to not break even. In fact honestly speaking it'll be cheaper to print a large number of discs than to print a small number on the overall costs. The issue is there's a lot of overhead costs which aren't be recouped, dev costs, multiplatform costs, localisation costs sometimes, marketing, salaries, rent so on and so forth. Those do count. It's not something that's quite simplistic. At the end of the day unsold copies of games like shadows of the damned being sold for cheap will be written off as bad debt since there's not much you can do.

 

I do wonder who lost the most out of brutal legend. I know activision were owed and they wanted that money but couldn't collect. I believe EA didn't make a killing out of it either but I do get the feeling that outside of mismanagement by DoubleFine they should've seen the most benefit there to be fair.

[Thursday Next]

If you want a (very big) ballpark gauge on whether or not a game was successful. A blockbuster title needs to reach top 15 to break even.

 

 

In an entirely different and unrelated comment Need for Speed The Run charted at around 20.

 

 

In further. Even more unrelated news http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2012-02-06-job-losses-at-ea-canada-and-black-box

 

 

Edited February 8, 2012 by Thursday Next

[Johnny]

To be honest I'm amazed that Need for Speed: The QTE didn't do worse than it did. Not even my friends who have bought every Need For Speed game since the ps2 had any interest in it.