Slashdot Mirror
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."
eat my shit
FP CLIT
I wouldn't be surprised if VA Software itself was funneling money to Al Quaeda and other anti-American terrorist organizations, due to the rampant anti-American sentiment that runs rampant through both comments and the little snide remarks made by Michael, CmdrTaco, etc. in the story submissions.
Before you sign up for the subscription service so that you can continue to get your oh-so-beloved "FIRST POST!!!!!!", just ask yourself exactly where the money is going. Maybe to kill another 3,000 innocent Americans.
Remember what our President said: If you aren't for us, you are against us. They are tracking you. Slashdot and other anti-American, anti-capitalist websites ARE being watched, I can assure you. Watch what you say. Personally I hope the whole lot of you are arrested and subjected to sleep-deprivation interrogation techniques. Serves you right.
Hey, Peter, maybe if Black and White didn't suck so much you wouldn't need help.
...for putting an end to that horrible string of CmdrTaco submissions.
And when I say "submissions", I mean, "shite stories by a whiny little bitch".
What happened to michael? Was he bad?
Because the airlines are a public fucking service. Insightful, my arse.
Peter Molyneux Asks For Gov't Help For Small Shops | Preferences | Top | 100 comments | Search Discussion
l | Last Journal: Tue March 04, 04:29 PM)
i ii)
....
z imation /xyzim.htm
z y/index2. html
Threshold: -1: 100 comments 0: 92 comments 1: 62 comments 2: 37 comments 3: 16 comments 4: 13 comments 5: 8 comments Flat Nested No Comments Threaded Oldest First Newest First Highest Scores First Oldest First (Ignore Threads) Newest First (Ignore Threads) Save:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Sorry Peter... (Score:5, Insightful)
by Dalroth (85450) on Tue March 11, 10:47 AM (#5484672)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Sorry Peter... by hrieke (Score:2) Tue March 11, 10:56 AM
Re:Sorry Peter... by govtcheez (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:08 AM
Re:Sorry Peter... by Bilestoad (Score:1) Tue March 11, 10:59 AM
Re:Sorry Peter... by Dalroth (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:07 AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Re:Sorry Peter... by October_30th (Score:1) Tue March 11, 10:56 AM
Re:Sorry Peter... by DevilM (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:09 AM
3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Why not? (Score:1, Insightful)
by viper21 (16860) on Tue March 11, 10:48 AM (#5484675)
(http://www.ruttencutter.com/)
The government subsidizes the airlines, so why not the video game industry? I know that I play video games a lot more often than I fly on planes.
I'm going to go call my congressman.
Oh, the games should be free too!
-S
--
[ruttencutter.com] [ruttencutter.com]
Scott Ruttencutter
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Why not? by dreamchaser (Score:2) Tue March 11, 10:54 AM
Re:Why not? by sporty (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:03 AM
Re:Why not? by cybermace5 (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:18 AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Putting his money where his mouth is (Score:5, Informative)
by e.a.kendrick (323575) on Tue March 11, 10:49 AM (#5484687)
In fact, Peter Molyneux actually has initiatives to keep the bedroom coder alive. Admittedly he's supporting Jeff Minter [llamasoft.co.uk] which is a pretty safe bet (check out the the "unity" mention on the lionhead [lionhead.com] site)
More of the same, that's what I say!
[ Reply to This ]
Film subsidies (Score:5, Interesting)
by leviramsey (248057) on Tue March 11, 10:49 AM (#5484688)
(Last Journal: Thu March 06, 12:10 PM)
This sounds suspiciously like film subsidies (the gov't gives money to moviemakers to help them make movies). Look at what film subsidies have done for the British film industry. Fifty years ago, the British film industry was in great shape. Actors were easy to find, and the techs behind the scenes (camerapeople, lighting, etc.) were plentiful and extremely competent. Now look at the British film industry. Sure, a lot of movies are filmed in Britain, but most of them are American productions. Even the James Bond films are financed by an American studio (MGM).
Beware of subsidies...
--
The four pillars of the male heterosexual psyche: naked women, lingerie, lesbians, and James Bond.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Film subsidies by 91degrees (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:08 AM
Re:Film subsidies by Viol8 (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:09 AM
4 replies beneath your current threshold.
screw that! (Score:5, Insightful)
by DevilM (191311) on Tue March 11, 10:50 AM (#5484696)
(http://devilm.com/)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:screw that! by rawb (Score:1) Tue March 11, 10:55 AM
Re:screw that! by stratjakt (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:04 AM
Re:screw that! by Rande (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:17 AM
Re:screw that! by ratamacue (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:15 AM
heh. (Score:1, Insightful)
by boschmorden (610937) on Tue March 11, 10:51 AM (#5484701)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Ahem by Rares Marian (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:07 AM
Re:Ahem^2 by boschmorden (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:13 AM
Re:heh. by Viol8 (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:11 AM
Re:heh. by boschmorden (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:17 AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Molyneux overrated (Score:4, Insightful)
by sql*kitten (1359) on Tue March 11, 10:52 AM (#5484704)
(http://www.kitten.org.uk/ | Last Journal: Mon March 10, 03:20 PM)
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.
--
"And that's the deal, my dear." -- Shakira
[ Reply to This ]
3 replies beneath your current threshold.
Smaller companies = smaller games (Score:4, Insightful)
by Flarg! (265195) on Tue March 11, 10:52 AM (#5484707)
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.
--
I may be wrong, but I'm never uncertain.
[ Reply to This ]
America's Army (Score:5, Insightful)
by presroi (657709) on Tue March 11, 10:52 AM (#5484708)
(http://www.presroi.de/)
Governments are already involved in the gaming industry. America's Army [americasarmy.com] 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 [bmi.bund.de]" (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?
--
-- nach uns der synflood.
[ Reply to This ]
Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
by stratjakt (596332) on Tue March 11, 10:53 AM (#5484717)
(Last Journal: Sun September 29, 01:10 PM)
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."
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
meh - not quite (Score:5, Interesting)
by Drunken_Jackass (325938) on Tue March 11, 10:53 AM (#5484718)
(http://slashdot.org/)
I beg to differ. Consider that the (arguably) most popular online multiplayer game (Counter-Strike) was created in a "small shop" - what was it, one guy?
Also, there are a ton of good games chugged out by small shops - consider Serious Sam.
Granted that small shop wasn't located in the US, but those are but two examples without blinking. I'm sure you can come up with your own short list of successful games produced by small companies.
--
"Hey, I'm just doing my job. You give me juris-my-diction crap, you can cram it up your ass."
[ Reply to This ]
Re:meh - not quite by FortKnox (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:03 AM
Re:meh - not quite by Repugnant_Shit (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:04 AM
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
That's the price of success (Score:3, Insightful)
by TopShelf (92521) on Tue March 11, 10:54 AM (#5484721)
(http://slashdot.org/~TopShelf/journa
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.
--
This guy [amazon.com] is frikkin' hilarious...
[ Reply to This ]
not a good idea (Score:1)
by Interfacer (560564) on Tue March 11, 10:54 AM (#5484722)
it is one thing to get financial support for developing new technologies that benefit an entire industry. at my company we sometimes have projects that benefit from such financial aid.
this only pertains to a well defined part of a project if is is a new technology.
supporting a business model that doesn't work however is just wasting money.
otherwise i would ask my government money so that i could do the projects that i would like to do without having to worry if my business model was profitable or not.
Int.
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
Bull (Score:1, Interesting)
by Anonymous Coward on Tue March 11, 10:55 AM (#5484731)
With a pre-built engine (like Torque), one developer can create a game. Maybe not with the greatest art, or stellar sound, or one that's grand in scope... but it can be done. I did it twice while in school.
The biggest problems I faced were figuring out a premise and getting artwork. I imagine one artist/writer type and one coder could form a dynamic duo and make games that are better than half the crap that you find in EB.
[ Reply to This ]
Bail out games companies??! (Score:4, Interesting)
by Viol8 (599362) on Tue March 11, 10:55 AM (#5484735)
Government money (ie taxpayers money) is there to fund vital public infrastructure such as hospitals
and schools etc. NOT to subsidise failings games companies! I couldn't think of anything more
trivial to for them to waste my tax money on. It seems to me that Mr Molyneux seems to think the
real world is like one of his sim games. Or maybe he's just testing the extent of politicians gullbility for reasearch purposes. Perhaps SimGovernment 2004 is on the cards??
[ Reply to This ]
Still room for independant games (Score:5, Interesting)
by silvakow (91320) on Tue March 11, 10:55 AM (#5484738)
(http://www.unixjokes.com/)
A few years ago, the game industry had (for the time) much better graphics than independant companies would use. Grand Theft Auto, however, still made its rounds. Large game companies are good at making games that are good logical progressions from other games on the market, but small game companies innovate. It's true that Rockstar did wind up selling the Grand Theft Auto name to a larger company, but they now have resources to make other games. Just as when, according to the article,
it was all geeks and nerds, who had long hair, ate pizza and drank Coke
there is not a huge market for the long-haired developers. Instead, there is a slightly smaller crows watching them, but independant games still have the ability to spread like wildfire. It's a wonderful thing when the geeks and nerds can write games, get it seen by a few hundred people through an independant gaming site, and if it's good enough, have them tell their friends and so on. I think this is much better than getting all of the attention of the thousand-person video-game crowd of the yester-year.
--
Humor For Geeks, Stuff that Doesn't Matter [unixjokes.com]
[ Reply to This ]
Example of a Small, Successful Development Group (Score:4, Informative)
by brulman (183184) on Tue March 11, 10:56 AM (#5484752)
I don't buy his arguments. There are small game shops thriving in the marketplace. The best example i can give is the guys at
www.battlefront.com
They've produced two games, Combat Mission and Combat Mission 2 that are considered by most afficianados as the best strategic war games ever made. They sell only over the internet, develop for Apple and PC simultaneously, and managed to sell out their first printing of the recent Combat Mission 2. There is still a place for the small guy. Great game by the way, I highly recommend it for those disatisfied with the standard RTS fare.
--
"the best safety of the frontier...will be secured by total annihilation of the few remaining indians" L Frank Baum 1890
[ Reply to This ]
Art? (Score:1)
by jmerelo (216716) on Tue March 11, 10:57 AM (#5484753)
(Last Journal: Thu December 13, 07:18 AM)
Does that mean that games will be (officially) considered art?
Will whatever you pay for a game be tax-deductible?
Will there be a national endowment for first-person shooters (NEFPS)?
[ Reply to This ]
Maybe, but why? (Score:2)
by Pike65 (454932) on Tue March 11, 10:57 AM (#5484763)
To be honest, I have no idea if this is true, but I see no reason why it should be. Just go back to gameplay. Make the games cheap and good fun. They may not last for as long as a fully cinematic, bump-mapped, Radeon-stretching, blah, blah, blah, but they'll pass the time.
Just look at the quality of work turned out by amateur game developers in their spare time on GameDev [gamedev.net] and Flipcode [flipcode.com] and the like. The coders are there. A simple game doesn't need much in the way of level designers or artists. So where are the big costs?
Whatever. Feel free to flame me - I know shit about the industry - and I am probably missing something big.
--
-- "If being a geek means being passionate about something, then I pity those who aren't geeks." - Pike65
[ Reply to This ]
Re:Maybe, but why? by rawb (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:19 AM
aproaching Film budgets. (Score:5, Insightful)
by jellomizer (103300) on Tue March 11, 10:57 AM (#5484766)
(http://slashdot.org/)
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.
--
Comparing HTML.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:aproaching Film budgets. by stratjakt (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:08 AM
Lord of the Game developers? Lame. (Score:1)
by L0stb0Y (108220) on Tue March 11, 10:59 AM (#5484774)
(Last Journal: Tue March 11, 06:39 AM)
Did you happen to catch the title of the article? "Lord of the Game Developers"
Does this mean he can program without moving his arms?
(Or is he just going to be sued soon for sexual escapades?)
*sorry*
LosT
--
"We are the music makers, and we are the dreamers of dreams."
[ Reply to This ]
I want to play Pork: Adventures in Gov Spending (Score:2)
by Rares Marian (83629) on Tue March 11, 10:59 AM (#5484781)
(http://slashdot.org/)
Mission I: Get approval of caffeinated chewing gum project (based on 60 Minutes before their laughing stock show split in two and ratings plunged).
Other titles:
Friendly Fire I: I Regret That I Have Only One Lif... Thud!
Friendly Fire II: No Such Disease
and My Favorite!
Electoral College Arena: Capture The Flag
--
Word goes around the world in 4 years. In 8 years the FUD has already become senseless chatter. There is no problem.
[ Reply to This ]
Agreed, Sorry Peter... (Score:3, Informative)
by Mullen (14656) on Tue March 11, 11:01 AM (#5484794)
(http://www.jasonmurphy.org/)
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.
--
--
Linux O Muerte!
I speak for myself, not my employer
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
On the other hand, (Score:3, Insightful)
by nagora (177841) on Tue March 11, 11:01 AM (#5484795)
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
--
Peter Jackson is to directing what salmonella is to eggs
[ Reply to This ]
Government assistance? (Score:2)
by Slightly Askew (638918) on Tue March 11, 11:01 AM (#5484797)
More than once in the article, the author recommends that the gaming industry receive the same support that the movie industry does. If the quality of recent British films (e.g. The Pianist) is the result of government interfere...er, assistance, I sincerely hope they keep their mitts off the gaming industry.
On the other hand, for those situations where government assistance is necessary, I think they are choosing the correct path. There are two schools of thought on government meddling in the business sector:
1) Give money to small businesses, which foster many new ideas but don't have the capital to bring them to market.
2) Persecute the big businesses so that small, idiotic companies with poor business models can flood the market with every little stupid idea that springs into their double mocha cappucino soaked brains.
It's pretty obvious which direction the US has chosen. Hopefully they can learn from the UK that option #1 is the better solution.
[ Reply to This ]
The art of computer games (Score:2)
by kinnell (607819) on Tue March 11, 11:02 AM (#5484802)
I think small games companies will get funded like small film studios as soon as computer games are acknowledged as an art form by the British art establishment, which will probably be sometime in the next century.
--
Don't waste your time reading this sig
[ Reply to This ]
Game Quality (Score:4, Informative)
by Bonker (243350) on Tue March 11, 11:03 AM (#5484814)
(http://www.furinkan.net/ | Last Journal: Tue October 15, 11:35 AM)
Perhaps Mr. Molyneaux's perspective is tinted by the relative success of 'Black and White' and its expansions in the face of a hostile American market.
For those not familiar with the game, Black and White is an innovative 'God' sim in which you literally play a god. You have your peasants worship you and command a anthropomorphic animal titan to do your bidding. It's quite interesting and it's quite intriguing. Not only is the 3d game engine great, the AI in the game is astounding. The animal titan really seems to 'learn' from you and from his own actions.
There was a significant problem with 'Black and White', however. Lionhead and EA shipped the game well behind schedule and with a truly horrible number of bugs still in the game. It crashed frequently and the animal AI had some very serious problems... Your animal learned to become more evil by harvesting fish, for example. In-game quests were broken and hidden features were put in the game that could only be unlocked with 3rd party tools. There were long freezes due to the game's auto-save feature and many, many actions you could take that would crash the game or would somehow 'lock' you. Many features promised during development simply weren't in the game. It was really quite miserable. The game was fun to play, but so punishing that it quit being fun well before you had come close to exhausting even a fraction of the content there.
Since Molyneaux is a huge name and people were eagerly expecting the game, the backlash was dramatic. Players demanded a patch to fix the problems, but at the same time. It was almost four months in develoment from release. Interest in the game waned. Just when the patch was released, a number of rule-changes were added into the patch to address multi-player concerns. Unfortuneately, these changes made the single-player game vastly more difficult. The patch was required if you wanted to download any of the extras or install any of the expansions. This put players in the position of You could choose to play without the patch and subject yourself to frequent problems and lock yourself out of all other upgrades, or you could install the patch and play a game that wasn't fun any more, even with the upgrades and expansions.
Accordingly, the expansions didn't do half as well as the original game release. I've heard rumors that the sequel is being scrapped because of poor expansion sales.
The problem here is not with Lionhead studio's small size, but with their game quality. Molyneaux and crew developed what should have been a revolutionary game, but crippled their own work by bowing to release deadlines, unrealistic expectations, and the angry, but loud demands of a very small minority section of their target audience.
--
Irony is receiving a spam entitled 'Tired of getting junk mail?'
[ Reply to This ]
Even a socialist ought to have a problem with this (Score:2)
by Junior J. Junior III (192702) on Tue March 11, 11:09 AM (#5484864)
(http://www.livejournal.com/users/jjj
Subsidizing a luxury like video gaming is hardly the reason people created governments. It's laughable that someone should suggest that the government should prop up an industry like this when they can't even properly feed or educate the population or keep crime at a reasonable level, and when the budgets are already as strained as they are.
--
Give a man a fish, he owes you one fish.
Teach a man to fish, you give up your monopoly on fisheries.
[ Reply to This ]
Sure (Score:1)
by Timesprout (579035) on Tue March 11, 11:10 AM (#5484871)
"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."
Peter nelected to mention the millions and millions and millions of pounds this successful game will generate in revene.
Nothing ventured, nothing gained
--
Repeat after me, we are all individuals
[ Reply to This ]
Time to plug my "company" (Score:1)
by Rik Sweeney (471717) on Tue March 11, 11:12 AM (#5484884)
If everyone from Slashdot can download our games then I can get a handout from the government and make some top quality titles*
Parallel Realities [parallelrealities.co.uk]
*no really, that's what I'll spend the money on.
[ Reply to This ]
Aint that the truth - too late though. (Score:1)
by linklater (150763) on Tue March 11, 11:13 AM (#5484894)
(http://homepage.mac.com/mslinklater)
I totally agree with Pete's sentiments. I am part of a small UK games developer (Curly Monsters, last game 'Quantum Redshift' Xbox), and we have just gone bust after our publisher pulled out of the sequel due to unsatisfactory sales (mainly in the US).
The grim truth is that small developers simply can't ride out any sort of market fluctuation, and if they get one game which doesn't make enough money, they are pretty much out of the game.
The games industry is in about the worst state that I've seen it in during my 10 years as a developer. Consolidation is inevitable unless small developers get some help. Everyone is just trying to amass enough investment to ride the storm out. Out the window goes innovative off-the-wall ideas from small dedicated teams. It's a shame.
My only fear is that this call for help is too little, too late. It's certainly too late for us...
[ Reply to This ]
1 reply beneath your current threshold.
gov subsidies are bad (Score:2)
by sirshannon (616247) on Tue March 11, 11:13 AM (#5484900)
(http://www.sirshannon.com/ | Last Journal: Tue October 15, 06:21 PM)
not only because they distort the worth of companies by allowing some to stay afloat when they need to go under, but more importantly, they create a flow of income that is quickly taken for granted. This is bad because there is no such thing as a free ride or money without strings attached. And this leads to compromised content and/or the eventual end of that money stream. If businesses are relying on government money, when that money disappears, what happens to the businesses? My city's arts funding was cut one year not too long ago. The art community acted like it was the end for them. I realized what a terrible thing it is to rely on money from something as shady as the government.
--
The truth doesn't care what I think.
sirshannon.com [sirshannon.com]
[ Reply to This ]
I'm the most deserving of government money then (Score:1)
by CrazyJim0 (324487) on Tue March 11, 11:14 AM (#5484910)
I just graduated Carnegie Mellon University for scientific computing. I can't get a job doing shit for anyone.
I'm coding my own MMOG because theres millions to be had, but in the meinwhile, I have like 50 cents on my table and 50,000$ in debt.
If other people are bitching for money cuz they're having trouble developing their video game, I should be the first mother fucker who gets it.
My ai page:
http://www.contrib.andrew.cmu.edu/~sager/
My XYZimator for animation for my game:
http://www.geocities.com/James_Sager_PA/xy
I don't have a webpage yet for my MMORPG mainly because big buisnesses have stolen my ideas in the past. I'm one of the best video game developers in the world, yet I'm broke as a mofo.
You can watch here though:
http://delvedesigns.com/websites/clancra
[ Reply to This ]
Boycott the Super-Humungous Games (Score:1)
by xjimhb (234034) on Tue March 11, 11:14 AM (#5484914)
All the damn AAA games are too big, too complex, and most of all, too focused on GRAPHICS at the expense of Gameplay. All the big studios are spending all that money on trying to make realistic (that is, indistinguishable from live movies or TV) displays.
What ever happened to the good old games? Adventure and Zork had no graphics at all, just text. Rogue/Nethack just use ASCII symbols. The early Wizardry games had stick figures. And I still enjoy going back to old Phantasy Star games on my Sega Genesis, primitive graphics but so what?
We need to stage a revolution, bring back games that can be played on an AVERAGE PC, with a built-in (mobo) video controller, instead of one of these ATGTXYZ Roadrage controllers that cost more than some entire PCs.
Boycott the "AAA" games (not difficult if you're running Linux or anything else other than Windoze!), bring back the garage-shop game developer, don't worry about selling games at Best Buy or those places, market "Indie" games over the Net.
--
Now, Something Completely Different in GHOST Sex
[ Reply to This ]
Content control. (Score:1)
by Stanl (646331) on Tue March 11, 11:17 AM (#5484940)
(http://www.jsonline.com/ | Last Journal: Fri February 07, 05:28 PM)
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.
[ Reply to This ]
Its the huge game companies that make it suck (Score:2)
by haplo21112 (184264) on Tue March 11, 11:19 AM (#5484951)
(http://www.epithna.com/)
Just look at EA and the number of great game companies and game series that they have plowed into the ground. Bullfrog and Origin used to be the best everyone of thier titles was excellent until EA showed up...everything after that was a joke, a pale parody of what it used to be...and what they have done to Maxis is just sameful...
That grand combining of game companies that brought Sierra, Dynamix, Blizzard, etc under one house almost cost us the whole thing....Sierra is a shell of it former self, Blizzard somehow managed to survive pretty much intact, thank god...
We need the small time developer they are the ones that drive the industry, by plowing new ground instead of plowing under to grow commodity products on a strict schedule. The larger game companies need to realize that with careful investment in(and not control of) and patience with the right game houses they can make a boatload of cash when the next big idea in games comes out...right now the industry despite some great games is rather stagnant...
I can't remember the last time I picked up a Space Flight Sim that wasn't more of the same or that evoked the feelings I got playing WC1,2,3 or X-Wing/Tie Fighter (other titles in those series were more of the same or actually pale shadows of the original games)
Quake was incredible, it broke ground based on its engine, and customizability(which really started as hacks in Doom that they went with)
Unreal was ground breaking, but just like quake really just Doom with prettier pictures
Freelancer is really just WC:Privter(sp?) with a bad control system....
Starcraft rocked, but was basically Warcraft in space....
We need fresh ideas and fresh blood, but the guys with the ideas can't afford to create them...
(As an aside I think the cost and complexity of tools is a big factor these days, 3DS Max which seems to be a requirement to complete in the modern Game world is niether cheap nor simple)...
--
Power Corrupts,Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely, leaving one person(group)in charge is absolutely corrupt.
[ Reply to This ]
Re:If we start funding every unprofitable business (Score:1, Insightful)
by Anonymous Coward on Tue March 11, 10:52 AM (#5484709)
We may as well become socialists
I'd rather have socialism than the current corpocracy that's getting worse and worse.
[ Reply to This | Parent ]
Re:If we start funding every unprofitable business by goldspider (Score:1) Tue March 11, 11:14 AM
Competition is King: AOL to be swallowed up by TW by Rares Marian (Score:2) Tue March 11, 11:18 AM