Peter Molyneux Asks For Gov't Help For Small Shops

spot35 writes "Maybe the gaming industry isn't as healthy as I thought. Peter Moluneux has gone on record stating that creating a successful video game is too expensive for the smaller developers. According to this BBC article he suggests that the government helps the smaller developers to keep them afloat. This other article gives a very brief profile of the man."

Comments

Sorry Peter...

[Dalroth]

I lament the small business as well (in all industries), but government financial support is the worse idea possible. Things change, times change, and most especially business changes. It's the belly of the beast out there. The best thing we can hope for is that competition stays alive and the government prevents any one company from taking over the entire market. As long as competition reigns supreme, the market will thrive and that's all that really matters.

Re:Sorry Peter...

[Boone^]

to be fair, Serious Sam is but one game in a long line of mindless shooters, whereas Black & White at least attempted at innovating some.

But I agree, it doesn't take $25M to innovate. There's middleware engines that can be had for a few bucks (or more) which can be adapted for whatever concept you can dream up.

Re:Sorry Peter...

[Pharmboy]

Why would a corporation hire more people when it can now afford to give even better benefits to the CEO and the other corporate elite?

With all due respect, I don't think you understand corporate philosophy very well. Any decent CEO understands investment. Its not that he needs $ now, so he will invest in anything that will return MORE than the cost of the investment. If you can borrow money for 10% to add more inventory you can easily sell for 20% net profit, then its a good investment.

People are an investment, too. They are not as likely to invest it in people who already make $1 million, since ITS NOT DEDUCTABLE. (Yes, you can't deduct pay to anyone over one million. Ask your CPA) You CAN make it so attractive to invest that many will.

And yes, you can rag capitalism, but the fact is: when you cut taxes (to a degree) you increase the amount of taxes collected. Once again, its NOT a zero sum game. When the US cut capital gains from 28% to 20%, they generated about $7000 in extra taxes from ME for example. I would not have made the investments otherwise, the risk wasn't worth the reward because of the taxes. Then it was, and I did, and I hired, and I made, and I paid. So from ME (a very average small business owner) that created a job for someone that now pays several thousand a year in taxes, plus thousands per year from me, all initited from a tax cut.

If you don't understand that, then you just aren't trying and do not care. Being anti-capitalist is easy when you don't have anything to offer the public that its willing to pay for.

Re:Sorry Peter...

[Archie Steel]

I disagree. In Quebec the government gave incentive for multimedia companies (and, to a lesser extent, game developers - there still needs to be some education about the distinction between the two among government officials), paying part of new employee's salaries for the first year, then a smaller part for the next five years or so. It grealy helped to spur the economy (even though the dot-com burst still affected us in the end). However, the only extent to which the government "poked their nose" was to verify that the money indeed went to new employees as salaries, and not to line the pockets of owners. I'm always puzzled by the visceral opposition people in the States have towards government intervention in business - especially considering that, without government subsidies, there would never have been a computer industry. The fact is that the three industries who've enjoyed the biggest growth (hi-tech, pharmaceutical and agriculture) are also the ones that have most benefited from government intervention (loans, tax breaks and subsidies). Also, when you consider the amount of money injected in the private sector through the Pentagon (i.e. your tax dollars at work), it's hard not to conclude that the U.S. has very interventionist economical policies. I know right-wing libertarians are going to flame me for this, but the fact is that a totally free market is an abomination that all industrialized countries abandoned since 1929 in favor of mixed economies (to varying degrees). With that in mind, I think government helping out small, independent studios (be it for games, films, art, books, etc.) is a great idea, as most of these won't be able to survive their first game, which will end up being the property of the publisher instead. Anyway, my subsidized 0.02$

Re:Sorry Peter...

[govtcheez]

Sure, the creature AI was interesting and everything, and all the little gimmick things were cool (including Outlook contacts as villagers, having similar weather as your zip code) - I can't deny that. The problem was, at the end of the day, there wasn't enough "game" in there. I spent more time trying to keep my creature from eating its own shit than doing anything fun. Something being innovative doesn't equate to it being a decent game.

Serious Sam was a cool game because it went over familiar ground, and did it well. Wave after wave of guys came out, and you killed them. Why? Who cares why - it was just damn fun to do. I like to have plots in my games, but sometimes it's a refreshing change of pace to kill the screaming thing running at you and not have to worry if it's someone you'll have to talk to to get a key or a plot point.

Re:Sorry Peter...

[patter]

Actually, it's just misperception. If you don't think your fortune 500 companies get government money, or never ever did, you're on crack.

Tax breaks anyone? Interest free loans? That's exactly what has gone on in the US for years. Someone's been actually believing Bush's BS campaign about 'cheap government subsidized lumber from Canada ruining the economy' if they honestly believe that Canada or the UK does things differently with regards to 'help' from government.

Maybe the disclosure laws are different, but it happens in the USA every day ;). Or at least it did.

There's no 'poking' of the nose as the above poster said implicit in getting government assistance in the form of low/no interest loans, which is what Molyneux seems to be on about.

The point is, if all the conglomerations continue, pretty soon the industry will be one publisher and one developer, and no benefit can be had for the consumer in that case (see any parallels in business software here?).

Also, you can't always just license an engine (although in many cases you can). An FPS engine is designed to render at insane speeds smaller environments - at least the quake derivatives do, black and white's engine had to support rapid camera changes from many different heights, so much of the traditional 3D backend was useless.

Games are getting more expensive to produce, you can't break in as an indie if your game LOOKS like it was done on a shoestring. Art costs more and more money, and with things like Dolby 5.1, the sound engineers need to be ever more sophisiticated and expensive. Our governments helping us indies out isn't paving the way for any more than keeping monopilies out before it happens to the games industry, because we've all seen how impossible it is to break up software monopolies.

screw that!

[DevilM]

The government shouldn't be in the business of helping companies out. Just think how better the airline industry would be if the government didn't bail them out. Companies like SouthWest, JetBlue, and AmericaWest are making money and are generally kinder to the average consumer. Giving money to the other airlines only hurts the profitable ones that are actually doing good by the consumer.

Re:screw that!

[stratjakt]

I agree that the amount of government support for the airlines was a tad outrageous, but it was prudent for them to keep them afloat. They're part of the infrastructure that keeps the economy moving. Personally I'd rather have seen more of the money diverted to the freight carriers, and not the screw-your-customers passenger lines (because as you pointed out, JetBlue et al can step up and replace them).

I don't want to see the country revert to a state where it takes a month to move goods from LA to New York.

Same with the internet, phone system, postal service, roadways, power grid, waterways. That stuff needs to work or business in general doesnt work.

The economy doesnt need the sequel to Black and White, or the uber-cool new quake clone that some propellerhead is dreaming about. That would be socialism.

The government has no responsibility to make sure your business stays afloat, that's the businesses business or something.

heh.

[boschmorden]

first the airlines, then gaming companies. the government needs to let business darwinism take over. the strongest shall survive. why must the United States PAY to keep struggling and non profit bearing companies afloat? Poor or outdated business models should not be an excuse anymore. take the airlines for instance. struggling to make a profit the gov't helps them out to keep a useful transportation infrastructure going. SCREW THEM. Let them die and a new breed of airlines with a different business model will take over. government tax breaks, subsidies for failing companies does not foster innovation. what's next, Microsoft losing money and needs gov't help? I dunno, sorry for the rant. well one thing is for certain, small gamging companies won't have the lobbyists or connections in DC to beg congress for the money.

Molyneux overrated

[sql*kitten]

Peter Moluneux has gone on record stating that creating a successful video game is too expensive for the smaller developers. According to this BBC article he suggests that the government helps the smaller developers to keep them afloat.

Let's face it, Peter Molyneux is overrated. Black and white was very pretty, sure, and it was a good idea, but it got tedious very quickly. It simply wasn't a very good game. He got lucky with a few games early on, that's all.

It's funny, he wants a handout now, but I didn't hear him campaigning for a windfall tax on the games industry in the boom of the late 90s.

Smaller companies = smaller games

[Flarg!]

There is a huge, emerging market for small games that fit on portable devices (Palms, cellphones, and even GBA). You don't have to publish games on the PS2 and X-box to be successful. They could also join in cooperative ventures with other small design houses to make bigger games, if they want.
If they can't find a way to survive, they deserve to fail.

America's Army

[presroi]

Governments are already involved in the gaming industry. America's Army is just one example of computer games produced for state PR (read: propaganda).

There has always been a long tradition of anti hate-games in Germany, funded by the ministry of the interior. The game series is called "Dunkle Schatten" (dark shadows").

If Peter wants funding "just for fun", he might think of giving something back to the one who funds him.

Oh, that reminds me of one question. Are the ads and banners in sport games (for making the game more realistic) sponsored by real companies?

Re:If we start funding every unprofitable business

[Anonymous Coward]

We may as well become socialists

I'd rather have socialism than the current corpocracy that's getting worse and worse.

Why?

[stratjakt]

You know what? The government should pay for everything. The government should own every business, keep them all running, and equally distribute the communal nations wealth to each citizen.

Then instead of a country where you succeed or fail based on your own skills, quality of product, and business mode, it would be like a one giant commune.

I think I'll invent a name for my new style of government based on a commune of shared wealth. I'll call it, umm, "the bus that couldnt slow down."

Re:Why not?

[dreamchaser]

Videogames, while wonderful pastimes, hardly rise to the level of importance that air or rail travel does. We're talking transportation infrastructure vs. entertainment. I know you were probably being cute with this comment, but some people really feel that way I'm sure!

Your post should be modded Funny. I think that's how you meant it, too.

That's the price of success

[TopShelf]

The gaming business has, over the last several years, graduated (through its own success) to a higher level of competition. The budget to produce a globally-marketed game has gone up precisely because the markets (and the stakes) are larger. The price of this maturation is that small players get squeezed out to some extent - but not necessarily the talent. The talented designers and developers get picked up by the larger firms. This is (overall) a good thing, and plays out similarly to just about any other industry that has grown so dramatically in such a short time. There are some winners and some losers, but overall we have a net gain for society as a whole, particularly the consumers.

aproaching Film budgets.

[jellomizer]

The problem with gaming indrustry with the cashflow is what people expect and want in the game has became more expensive to use. Back in the 90s and more so in the 80s games were programed by developers they did not have the technology readly available to make the games look perfect so almost any software developer with margninal art skill can make a game with good graphics and have it competitive in the market. But todays vidio games are aproaching film like budgets because of inhanced vidio and music so except for a ragtag team of software developers you now need Professional Artests, Musicians, Writters, and Actors. A story of Your are stuck in the castle and now you need to get out. Dosent seem to work with top games. We are now expecting more in games. Just like the film indrustry most popular movies now need millions of dollars to be popular the games are now needing to be the same. Because people are demanding their games to be just as good if not better then their movies they watch. As for me I am happy with kspaceduels. But I am not the average game player.

Agreed, Sorry Peter...

[Mullen]

If your company can not stand on it's own two legs, then it should not be. That goes for airlines, car and game companies. If there is a desire by people willing to pay then someone will run a successful business providing that service or good.

I don't understand this attitude that says, Privatize profits but socialize loses. Just because you can't come up with a good idea and implement it, does not mean my taxes should be raised to cover any loses.

And do you really want government to stick its nose into gaming content? Yes, there is a rating system, but it does not limit what can be in a game. The last thing I want is John Ashcroft and President Bush looking over John Carmacks shoulder telling him he can't put in the monsters of my soon to be nightmares into Doom 3.

On the other hand,

[nagora]

It helps if said small shops don't hype their product to the skies and then produce something as buggy, short, unfinished, and dull as Black & White.

TWW

Re:Why not?

[sporty]

Yeah, but more rely on airlines than on video games.. Lesse...

• USPS and similar services
• Multi-homed offices, where exec's need to get to point A from B
• Families need it from emergencies to reunions
• Long-distance commuters
  

If airlines shut down, trouble abound. Lots of traffic jams, undeliverables and stranded people.

If you don't get duke nukem forever, you'll live.

Content control.

[Stanl]

If the government started funding the development of video games, you'd soon have every interest group you can imagine trying to influence the content.

If you think there are too many efforts to control content in games now, just wait until our ultra-conservative elements hear that tax dollars would be going to help fund violent first-person shooters or Grand Theft Auto-type games. Granted, it seems the publishers of those types of games might not need any government welfare, but do we want game developers to be put in a position where they risk losing the funding (possibly keeping them afloat) if they don't make content compromises?

Government-funded newspapers and TV stations in foreign countries is a possible parallel. If editors and producers don't parrot what the government says, the funding stops (or the offenders get fired). Either way, it's a quagmire I'd rather avoid.

Taxes

[nrohyarts]

If the government subsidized small shops, we'd all pay for it through taxes. Do you want to send your money to a small shop that has a mediocre concept, can't compete, or just isn't smart enough to know when to hang it up. It's not everyone's right to be successful. It's just everyone's right to have the same OPPORTUNITY to be successful. The government (by subsidizing) cannot be expected to guarantee success. If you can't let go of that game concept long enough to get a real job then maybe there are some other psychological issues at work here. Get a paying job, pay taxes, and contribute to society! If you're into medical research or something altruistic besides freakin' games, then maybe I'd be OK with a grant, but COME ON--GAMES?

Film subsidies == "arty" crud

[Julian Morrison]

One other feature of government subsidies is that they come with government strings. Which universally favor "political correctness" and, in the movie industry, result in the creation of a slew of ten hour films of the artist's own belly button, and suchlike trash. One could assume that the game results will be similar. Not to mention they will also likely be bland pap, since there would be public pressure on the government freebie givers to turn up their noses at anything "encouraging violence" or "prurient" or suchlike nanny-behaviorist blather.

The market reflects the free choices and preferences of the buying public. Attempt to bypass it, and all you get is something by definition unsaleable. Worse, you misallocate resources (in films: actors; in games: programmers) towards the production of unwanted crud, which stifles the market for good stuff and raises its price.

"Maybe the gaming industry isn't as healthy"???

[iainl]

Quoth the author "Maybe the gaming industry isn't as healthy as I thought".

I take it that the recent collapse of Rage (of Rocky, Lamborghini, GoGo Beckham etc.) and Curly Monsters (Quantum Redshift) and the merger of Sega with Sammy, all in the last month or two passed them by, then?

Why not?

[Yer Mum]

I can tell this is an American board.

Is there any difference between grants for games companies than grants for films, the arts, museums, neighbourhood community projects, etc...

Or even just reducing the burden of taxes on these organisations would help.

Because it costs much less to invest in your own country's companies, keeping your own population in jobs, educated and trained, and having your country produce something whih is then exported and brings money in for the country than slinging everyone out on their ear and watching unemployment benefit costs going off the scale.

In the UK taxes are going up again in April. Small and medium-sized companies really will go to the wall, as if enough aren't already now.

If we take the current system to its logical conclusion and outsource everything to the lowest bidder in India, there is very little left that could be done in this country apart from police, lawyers, politicans, and hairdressers. And it won't be some work-free utopian paradise service economy where people spend all day skipping through fields. It'll be an uneducated unemployed population who can only claim off the state because there are no jobs available.

It's hit the spotlight in the UK with British Telecom staring outsourcing call centre jobs (yes, even the lowest-skilled jobs are being outsourced) to India.

I would have thought that computer programmers, being the first on the receiving end, would have realised the economics a long time ago. Sadly not.

Absolutely Not

[Syncdata]

"Making a computer game now is incredibly expensive," said Mr Molyneux. "You're talking about millions and millions of pounds to make a triple-A, globally successful game."
So rather than having you, or a small development house shell out the money in exchange for potential windfalls, we should all front your money, at no return to ourselves. This is why we have what is known as "Market Capitalization". Sell some stock, and that will allow you to finish the product.
Business ventures are not for the faint of heart, whatever field you are talking about, and the development of videogames offers zero return on investment to the taxpayer. The closest example to this was the Army game, and that was given away for free, and had a purpose, namely, recruitment. I fail to see how a game featuring a giant cow furthers any objective a government might have.
I oppose this for the exact same reason I oppose the National Endowment of the Arts. Do what you want to do, fine, but do it with your own resources. Don't make me subsidize a game that I'll end up paying for anyhow.

Cause, effect.

[Lemmy Caution]

The film industry is subsidized in many countries because they were unable to compete against Hollywood, not the other way around. Arts that are thriving without public support don't go looking for public support.

Molyneux overrated? I think not

[WIAKywbfatw]

Let's face it, Peter Molyneux is overrated. Black and white was very pretty, sure, and it was a good idea, but it got tedious very quickly. It simply wasn't a very good game. He got lucky with a few games early on, that's all.

Peter Molyneux overrated? Got lucky with a few games early on?

Man, just what are you smoking?

Ever heard of Populous, the original "god" game? It created a whole new genre and blew the socks off everything else out there at the time.

How about Powermonger, Magic Carpet, Syndicate, Theme Park, Dungeon Keeper and their derivatives? All original games, all great plays and all great successes.

Care to name some other developers with as impressive a track record of producing original, highly-addictive games that have been as popular?

So you didn't like Black And White. Fine, you're entitled to your opinion. But to dismiss one of the industry's most creative and productive minds as "overrated" and "lucky" is ridiculous.

Re:Putting his money where his mouth is

[lucretio]

I think "putting his money where his mouth is" would make more sense if he were advocating that the big guys should help the little guys. Advocating that the government should help the little guys is a bit different.

Re:Game Quality

[gid]

but crippled their own work by bowing to release deadlines

EA is notorious for forcing game companies to release on schedule, even though the game isn't quite done or polished enough. Just ask id Software and about any other game company that has agree to a release date with EA. Take BattleField 1942 as another example for instance, that game still has huge sound issues, but it was still released as is. Although in Dice's defense, I have a feeling the sound issue problem is something with directx/directsound, as Medieval: Total Warfare has similar problems.

While I hate it when a game is released early, I can see where EA is comming from. EA didn't get to where there are today by being dumb, timing the release of a game can make or break it.

Molyneux - game genius in his own mind?

[ishmaelflood]

Let's have a look at his history, these are his games that I have bought, pretty much in chronological order. I rarely play games through to the bitter end, if I get really stuck on a mission I chuck the game.

Populous-Innovative, playable, successful, fun

(early) Populous derivatives - nothing new here that mattered.

Syndicate - Innovative yada yada. Played this through three times at least. Quite possibly the single best game I have ever played.

Syndicate add on - Unplayably difficult. Couldn't finish first mission, as I remember.

Magic Carpet - Innovative, playable, successful, fun. Maybe it got too hard too quickly, but it was a truly astonishing game.

Magic Carpet follow on - too hard not fun.

Syndicate Wars - too hard, too ugly

Populous 3 - innovative, tedious, crashy. gave up on about mission 3

Black and White - innovative. tedious. Gave up on mission 1

I make that three good-great games but every sequel is a bust, and Black and White is just not my cup of tea. Maybe I prefer destroying things to building them.

I agree completely

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought maybe I liked the game (B&W), but the bugs were horrendous. After playing the game for a couple hours, it was taking literally 5 minutes for a game save to occur, and the game saves occured every 20 minutes or something automatically.

Eventually during one of the saves, I just got up from my chair and never played it again.

EA's website said nothing. Lionhead's site was apologetic, and offered an outlaw (unapproved by EA) patch at some point, but still weeks after it was too late.

As an additional note, I also felt it was unclear at many points in the game what you had to do to unlock the next "quest" to progress through the game.

Anyway, Syndicate and Magic Carpet were awesome and the pinnacle of Molyneux' work. Some might say Populous was, and I couldn't disagree with that either, I just enjoyed Syndicate too much to agree completely.

Syndicate Wars was a complete disaster and is one of those sequels (like Civilization Call To Power) that made you wonder if the writers of the sequel/addon even knew what made the original game fun.