Skyway VS EVIL PUBLISHER!

[RK47]

BRO DON'T FIGHT

 

[Lancehead]

They probably see the opportunity cost too high. I mean that someone like EA could be making low risk, low investment, niche games alongside their AAA games, but they probably think the ~ 2 year development time for the niche game could be used to make another AAA game and earn bigger revenues.

Too bad they're wrong. Azrael explains:

snip

If a Walmart exec was to say 'let's drop that product line - it only makes us $200,000 a year', they'd be out of a job. The CEO would tell the guy that he should be milking everything out of the mainstream AND every litttle piece of profit they can find, no matter how small it is (because since when was it an 'either/or' thing? Why do AAA publishers think 'we don't want to make a game with a safe $200,000 profit because we want to go for the centre of the market and make a $100,000,000 profit', when they should instead be making as many of those multi-billion dollar games as possible UNTIL THE MARKET IS SATURATED and then go grab that extra $200,000 AS WELL. Once they adopt that attitude, they might find that there's actually a whole host of untapped markets worth $200,000 each, which might end up making the difference between long-term profit and long-term decline.

snip

Who's better at capitalism? EA, or Walmart?

Agree with that.

 

[Black_Willow]

Seems Raw has found a new job. Maybe we'll see him posting a thread about how great <some shitty developer's his new employer's name> is. Sadly, that's...

how the real world works

 

[Kane]

 

[Roguey]

Could the Biodocs have gotten permission from the CEO of EA to allocate a handful of personnel to make a low budget Baldur's Gate-style PC RPG, to make the oldschool fans happy? They couldn't, right? The idea sounds outlandish.

EA's hands-off when it comes to Bioware. They give them money and a target ROI and let them figure out how to make it. The Biodocs decided that a low-budget RPG would not help them meet their target. They considered it once. http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=2644

I also got to see one other game ideation process from a slightly different angle: I pitched a game to BioWare. It was a small game. Less than a man-year of total work. I figured I was still fairly newbish, so smaller would be a safer bet. But, as it turned out…
Small games aren’t necessarily an easier sell than big games

The thing about studios is, they’re expensive to run. And more to the point, employees are expensive to keep. Employees need salaries, sure. But they also need benefits. And equipment. And space to work in. And support staff. This all adds up, unsurprisingly. A useful “napkin math” figure I learned while in the industry is that your average employee costs twice their salary over a year. Think about that, for a moment. Let’s say your average employee is making $50k per year. That probably means you cost your employer $100k annually. That’s over $8k per month!
So when it came to pitching my small game idea, the question of money inevitably came up. I met with our director of finance, and we started working some numbers. Suffice to say, even a small team over a small time adds up. And that doesn’t include overhead for a product website, marketing, community management, etc. It became pretty evident to me that my barrier to profit was much higher than I realized.

 

[Infinitron]

Could the Biodocs have gotten permission from the CEO of EA to allocate a handful of personnel to make a low budget Baldur's Gate-style PC RPG, to make the oldschool fans happy? They couldn't, right? The idea sounds outlandish.

EA's hands-off when it comes to Bioware. They give them money and a target ROI and let them figure out how to make it. The Biodocs decided that a low-budget RPG would not help them meet their target. They considered it once. http://rampantgames.com/blog/?p=2644

I also got to see one other game ideation process from a slightly different angle: I pitched a game to BioWare. It was a small game. Less than a man-year of total work. I figured I was still fairly newbish, so smaller would be a safer bet. But, as it turned out…
Small games aren’t necessarily an easier sell than big games

The thing about studios is, they’re expensive to run. And more to the point, employees are expensive to keep. Employees need salaries, sure. But they also need benefits. And equipment. And space to work in. And support staff. This all adds up, unsurprisingly. A useful “napkin math” figure I learned while in the industry is that your average employee costs twice their salary over a year. Think about that, for a moment. Let’s say your average employee is making $50k per year. That probably means you cost your employer $100k annually. That’s over $8k per month!
So when it came to pitching my small game idea, the question of money inevitably came up. I met with our director of finance, and we started working some numbers. Suffice to say, even a small team over a small time adds up. And that doesn’t include overhead for a product website, marketing, community management, etc. It became pretty evident to me that my barrier to profit was much higher than I realized.

That's what I'm talking about. Why is there one single mandated "target"? Why can't a developer do all sorts of things, and aim for all sorts of targets?

 

[Roguey]

That's what I'm talking about. Why is there one single mandated "target"? Why can't a developer do all sorts of things, and aim for all sorts of targets?

Because it's a public company and stockholders only care about their investments.

Edit: Josh thoughts http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/250065624351380372

 

[Infinitron]

That's what I'm talking about. Why is there one single mandated "target"? Why can't a developer do all sorts of things, and aim for all sorts of targets?

Because it's a public company and stockholders only care about their investments.

Edit: Josh thoughts http://www.formspring.me/JESawyer/q/250065624351380372

Man, I'm not even talking about breaking even.

Baldur's Gate costs around 5 million to make, sells two million copies (that took a long time back in the early 90s, but today with digital distribution and effective marketing it could sell that much faster and have a higher profit margin)

Mass Effect costs, what, five times that? And sells four million copies. x5 investment for x2 revenue? You have to realize that something weird is going on here.

And I think I know what that something is. In short - empire building. Size for its own sake. A game like Mass Effect employs more artists, programmers, designers, than Baldur's Gate does. Any organization seeks to preserve itself and maximize its size, even regardless of relative profitability.

Or if you want to look at it more compassionately, bosses want to make big games so they don't have to fire their employees. After all, a company like inXile will never provide many jobs for the community.

 

[Roguey]

Baldur's Gate costs around 5 million to make, sells two million copies (that took a long time back in the early 90s, but today with digital distribution and effective marketing it could sell that much faster and have a higher profit margin)

Would it? The Biodocs know more than anyone how much money they cost and how much they'd get in return. They didn't think it an acceptable risk.

Mass Effect costs, what, five times that? And sells four million copies. x5 investment for x2 revenue? You have to realize that something weird is going on here.

Don't forget DLC. It also sells faster than BG did.

And I think I know what that something is. In short - empire building. Size for its own sake. A game like Mass Effect employs more artists, programmers, designers, than Baldur's Gate does. Any organization seeks to preserve itself and maximize its size, even regardless of relative profitability.

Eh, maybe. I know Bioware didn't like having to rush DA2 in 11 months just to keep all those employees hired. No good having a bunch of employees if most of 'em are miserable.

 

[Infinitron]

Eh, maybe. I know Bioware didn't like having to rush DA2 in 11 months just to keep all those employees hired. No good having a bunch of employees if most of 'em are miserable.

Sure, but I imagine that they were promised that if they toughed it out and succeeded, DA3 would get a saner timetable. Which, to EA's credit, seems to have happened.

Would it? The Biodocs know more than anyone how much money they cost and how much they'd get in return. They didn't think it an acceptable risk.

You're talking about this Daniel guy's pitch? It was actually rejected due to "gameplay" reasons according to that post. Regardless I don't see how that's relevant. We don't know what kind of game this was.

Don't forget DLC. It also sells faster than BG did.

We'll learn how fast a BG-like game would sell today when Project Eternity is released.

 

[Roguey]

You're talking about this Daniel guy's pitch? It was actually rejected due to "gameplay" reasons according to that post. Regardless I don't see how that's relevant. We don't know what kind of game this was.

Well that and any time someone on their forum asks why they don't make a game like BG again. If they thought it'd help them meet their ROI target more reliably than what they've been doing, they would have done it.

We'll learn how fast a BG-like game would sell today when Project Eternity is released.

Possibly, but people are seem to be particular about these things. BG and BG2 may have eventually sold more than 2 million each, but Torment and the Icewind Dale series sales were in the hundreds of thousands. Eternity might not hit what people wanted from BG that they didn't get from the others.

 

[Kane]

it's the damn publishers infinitron, they are bringing down honest developers like OE and inxile. they have their little agendas running to extort as much money as possible from hapless developers. they prey on the weak. maggots.

 

[Infinitron]

Well that and any time someone on their forum asks why they don't make a game like BG again. If they thought it'd help them meet their ROI target more reliably than what they've been doing, they would have done it.

Like I said, if forced to choose between lower ROI and making employees redundant, I believe a large percentage of managers would choose the former.

Few games have higher ROI than Minecraft, but I don't see AAAs scrambling to emulate that, because it's just not what they do, at an essential level.

"We're BioWare. Making content-rich, cinematic games is our business."

 

[dnf]

Delightful thread.

CDV didn't hold a gun to Larian's head and tell them to fill the last levels full of trash mobs, they just wanted an orange area. And the last dungeon isn't even orange. Makin' excuses for terrible developers: the thread.

Why Larian didn't try to fix that pos release?

Because after the release of Divinity, Larian was completely broke. They hadn't received advance payments in a while and never received a single dime of royalties. In other words CDV screwed them because Divinity certainly didn't sell too bad. Swen had to fire almost the entire team and they had to slave on work-for-hire projects to stay afloat and made the patches for Divinity without receiving any payment.
Larian was in this situation twice, and they only managed to survive because they were the only Flemish speaking developer and could therefore ask for high prices for their hire work on Casino and TV games.

What about today? I think they have funds to make this happen nowadays.

 

[FeelTheRads]

fuck off infinitron. you have little clue of how the real world works, yet you try talking the talk.

I'd like to know what credentials you have for knowing the real world that you think everybody who disagrees with you has no idea about it. GD is not credentials. Go back there with these awesome arguments.

it's the damn publishers infinitron, they are bringing down honest developers like OE and inxile. they have their little agendas running to extort as much money as possible from hapless developers. they prey on the weak. maggots.

No, it's obvious instead that all developers lie and shift blame and it's never the publisher's fault, not even when a direct order of "add this to the game" is issued. In this case if all who disagree with you don't know how the real-world works, I fear your real-world might not be a very logical world.

 

[RK47]

he works hard.
raw is an honest man.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

OK, so it's a Lawful Neutral publisher barrier. Why should I give a fuck what their motivation is? It's preventing me from getting what I want.

Because if you gave a fuck you would be able to reason with yourself about the quality of your pitch and you will most probably discover that it's simply not up to standards and that's why your weird ass game isn't finding a publisher.

Bwahahahaha.

You can laugh all you want, but the people running the show @ publisherHQ aren't stupid. They know what they have with their money printing machines, and they know what they have not. Should, say, CoD fall from grace Activision is in trouble. They want to diversify their portfolio and they want to do that sooner than later. They are looking for games with "the sauce", everyone is. If you go there with a good pitch you will get to make your game, believe it or not. There is no "evil publisher wall".

In any case, noone can tell me that Infinity Ward is oppressed by Activision to make CoD every year. They want to do that shit, because it earns them money. Neither publisher nor developer are doing anything because of some hounoureful higher principles. Both want to make money, plain and simple. Both parties in this relationship signed a contract and agreed to deliver, there is zero reason to single out publishers and shift responsibility from the dev. Developers are just as guilty for a fuck up, and in the general case they are more guilty because it's the developer that has the creative control about the game and not the publisher.

OE doesn't get to make the games they want, because their track record is shit. I understand that this is somewhat of an chicken/egg problem, and there is certainly some bad publisher here and there, but if all your games over the last 10 years end up being either shit to mediocre or outright canceled, it's not just the publishers fault.
InXile makes shitty popamole console bullshit, and now they want to do a high-level ultra-complex (in comparison) cRPG. Why would you trust them to deliver?

Understandable that both parties go "GRRR PUBLISHERS!!!", but the reasoning of publishers is generally speaking just as understandable. There is no conspiracy to bring the poor developer down afoot.

Which is why the Coen Brother's No Country for Old Men was forced by movie producers to include killer cyborg action scenes and voice overs explaining the plot. Thank god that the gaming industry is so much more creatively independent than Hollywood.

SIngle examples hardly compare to the general case. Are you suggesting that all developers are forced to include killer cyborg action scenes and voice overs? How do voice overs even make a game worse?

It's like you're trying your hardest to be wrong about absolutely fucking everything. What's most hilarious is that the CoD example works against your case, since that was one of the major points of contention in the whole West and Zampella vs Activision situation - IW wanted to make something other than CoD, and secured that in their contract. Whole lot of good that did them. I thought publishers held contracts sacred Raw, I am very confused.

 

[Kane]

I thought publishers held contracts sacred Raw, I am very confused.

A contract is a legally binding document, there is little point in worshiping it.

I don't know the details of the CoD deals, but fact of the matter is that IW is still working on the 99th iteration on CoD. What else can this be but a developer being forced at gunpoint by the evil publisher?

You are free to explain what is oh so wrong about my other points, surely you'll follow up on that?

 

[FeelTheRads]

A contract is a legally binding document,

What else can this be but a developer being forced at gunpoint by the evil publisher?

IW wanted to make something other than CoD, and secured that in their contract.

They signed a contract that is "legally binding". It made no difference. They are still to blame.

he works hard.

Yeah, or "my father makes more money than your father". Welcome to kindergarden.

 

[Kane]

They signed a contract that is "legally binding". It made no difference. They are still to blame.

What are you blaming IW for?

 

[FeelTheRads]

What are you blaming IW for?

Just how fucking dumb are you?

You are blaming them, not me. They signed a contract to do something different. The fact that they didn't it's obviously their fault because:

What else can this be but a developer being forced at gunpoint by the evil publisher?

Surely publishers never break contract or force developers to do something that wasn't agreed on. Only developers do that.

But hey, continue screaming about conspiracies and people claiming publishers are out to gut developers, when it was never about that, but about the simple fact that people who give you money will have requests for those money and often those requests result in shitty games. Must feel good fighting those windmills, though.

 

[Kane]

You are blaming them, not me.

Can't remember that I blamed them for anything. I just said that CoD is their responsibility and not that of their publisher.

They signed a contract to do something different. The fact that they didn't it's obviously their fault because:

Dunno, if they signed a contract to do something different but didn't pursue that probably means they couldn't deliver it for some reason.

Surely publishers never break contract or force developers to do something that wasn't agreed on. Only developers do that.

If you break a contract you find yourself in court. Don't do it, it's a very bad thing to do. From the top of the head I am not aware of any developer or publisher that broke their contract.

 

[Cowboy Moment]

raw, edgy namecalling and emotes aside, you really should go read a bit more about the IW vs Activision situation, there are several extensive writeups available. Because right now, you are really just embarassing yourself more with every post. Either do that, or don't use it as an example, because jesus christ.

 

[Kane]

raw, edgy namecalling and emotes aside, you really should go read a bit more about the IW vs Activision situation, there are several extensive writeups available. Because right now, you are really just embarassing yourself more with every post. Either do that, or don't use it as an example, because jesus christ.

what is there to read about specifically? you are just hurf blurfing the metadiscussing without providing real arguments. if you are unable to do that, go away. in fact, all you have provided to this discussion up to now are useless snide-remarks without any content. step up your game or stop posting.

 

[FeelTheRads]

useless snide-remarks without any content.

Pretty much all your posts so far.

If you break a contract you find yourself in court.

You sure know how that real world works. Some small company will sue a gigantic publisher because it forced them to do things that weren't in the contract. I can totally see it happening.

I just said that CoD is their responsibility and not that of their publisher.

Let me put it in simple words for you:

Boss tells you not to flip the tortoise. You don't flip the tortoise. Who's responsible for not flipping the tortoise?