Slashdot Mirror
Tara Reid And The Future Of Game Development
Thanks to GameSpy for its article covering Naughty Dog's president Jason Rubin discussing why gaming needs to do more for its talent. Rubin explained the strange title of his lecture by referencing to Sony's E3 2003 party: "After several calls, lots of hassle, waiting in a long line, and a trip through the metal detector, Rubin was able to get in. Meanwhile, Hollywood darling Tara Reid simply strolled into the party. This got Rubin thinking about how much money and attention publishers garnish celebrities with. By contrast, the business does a really poor job of promoting its own talent." He went on to note: "Very rarely do you see a developer's name on the box, and sometimes you don't even see the developer's logo", and urged a change of attitude: "Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made."
But don't worry... Tara was the one photographed by US Weekly that night vomiting all over herself, tripping in a drunken state and being carried out by her friends (as she is every night). So I don't think it's that great to be in her shoes.
Plus, can she honestly think anyone would want to see her onscreen once she's 30? It's common knowledge that there are few jobs for older actresses, and the only ones who get them are the ones with a LOT of talent (Kidman, Zelwegger, Zeta-Jones, Keaton, Lane).
Look forward to seeing Ms. Reid in "The Surreal Life 6."
Jason Rubin also holds the dubious honor of being one of the most conceited people in the video game industry. Thinks he's so damn secksy...
I even know a few people who believe that the publisher is the one who makes the games. One of them continued to argue with me in the case of True Crime: Streets of LA, telling me that Activision makes all his favorite games, and that there was no way that i was telling him they didn't make them at all. (except for marketing, packaging, etc.) It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory, because that puts them in a position of advantage on the developers, giving the publisher all the money for doing less work. This is really evident when looking at EA --- its "EA games' Battlefield 1942", not "DICE's Battlefield 1942" what the leads to, is the developers completely getting swindled, as the record companies do now, but in a different way -- you won't get sales unless you go with one of the big labels (in the case of games, publishers), and if you DO go with them, they'll swindle you for all you're worth. I'd really like to hear some real developer's opinions on this though, as IANAGD. (I am not a game developer) C'mon guys, i know you're out there.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
This is really a problem with American and European publishers (Peter Molyneux promoting himself and Lionhead Studios notwithstanding). In Japan, the developers are well known and given credit for their work. Voice actors, who often do no other voice acting other than video game related gigs, are treated like rock stars by video game fans.
The attitude seems to be that the folks that market the game seem to think THEY are the stars. Developers are regarded as slave labor to be exploited and dismissed.
The way Hollywood treats the talent sucks. But's that's as true for Tara Reid as for Jason Rubin. As Ms. Reid will find out the very moment people get bored with her.
So Jason, if you want to be treated like a real human being, switch to an industry that grasps the concept.
From his article "To make the changes, Rubin urged developers to reverse their thinking. He feels that talent needs to force the change. Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made. The talent should view the publisher as a tool for marketing, public relations, and sales. They are the ones making the games and they are the ones that should be wielding more power."
I remember a publishing company called Gathering of Developers that started up using these ideals. Ideals like the developers deserve credit for their work, and other similar concepts. Great idea, but they were never taken seriously. And after seeing somewhat of how they ran and showed themselves, it's not a wonder. If someone attempts to do this again, they need to be a tad more mature, at least until they have a few top selling titles under their belt.
I do wish developers got the recognition they deserve. But by no means do they deserve the world, and some of them I think expect this.
The last time we turned developers into celebrities, the world was punished with Daikatana.
Rob
It works the other way too. I had a TERRIBLE expiriance with Sid Meier's Sim Golf, and I doubt I will ever buy one of his games again. If I do it will be a very VERY hard sell. This would be nice too because companies that continue to produce slop would be frowned upon and more people would avlid their crud. As it is now you have everything from fantastic games to the worst things you've ever played all under one name (like EA).
It makes sense too. This really is a talent business like the movies and not just a "name" business like bras or something. And when was the last time ANYONE went to see a movie because it was being distributed by Warner or Sony? People could care less who distributes the movie, it's who directed/stars/wrote/produced it.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
(argh, stupid /. and linebreaks)
I completely agree..
I even know a few people who believe that the publisher is the one who makes the games.
One of them continued to argue with me in the case of True Crime: Streets of LA, telling me that Activision makes all his favorite games, and that there was no way that i was telling him they didn't make them at all. (except for marketing, packaging, etc.)
It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory, because that puts them in a position of advantage on the developers, giving the publisher all the money for doing less work. This is really evident when looking at EA --- its "EA games' Battlefield 1942", not "DICE's Battlefield 1942"
what the leads to, is the developers completely getting swindled, as the record companies do now, but in a different way -- you won't get sales unless you go with one of the big labels (in the case of games, publishers), and if you DO go with them, they'll swindle you for all you're worth.
I'd really like to hear some real developer's opinions on this though, as IANAGD. (I am not a game developer) C'mon guys, i know you're out there.
Newsie, Moderator, www.tauniverse.com
I only half agree with him.
I DO think developers need to weild the majority of the power in the relationship. Its good for them, and its good for us consumers. Publishers shouldn't be trusted with the level of control they currently have, because the only ones it benefits is themselves. So yes, I definitly think its high time for developers to "take the power back" as it were.
That said, I do NOT want to see another "Jim Bob's Galactic SpaceGunner" or "Killing Stuff in Dungeons: Joe Nobody Edition". I'll give credit where credit is due, but if people start putting their fucking names on boxes as a selling point, i'm out. Games should be judged on their merit, regardless of who made them. If you, as a talented developer, happen to produce consistently great games... well congrats! People will recognize you and have faith in projects you're attatched too. But I don't agree with people exploiting their publicity. Everyone, and every studio is equally capable of making a shitty game.
So just make good games, tell the publishers to go piss up a rope, and the consumers will take care of the rest.
People like tara reid put a lot of work into developing and maintaining their celebrity. They hire people who work the system, they try to get stories about them in the entertainment "news" outlets, etc.
The game companies put the celebrities on the box because they think it's in their interests to do so -- they think that it will drive sales. If they thought that about the designers and coders, they do it for them, too.
If the geeks were smart, they'd try to emulate what hollywood people do to build their careers -- they'd do what they could to create high profiles, to make their names recognizable. That would give them more juice when they try to negotiate with the companies.
Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made.
If only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.
Unless the world of game developers collectively decided to tell the publishers off on three, there's no way that the developer is going to become the one wearing the pants in the developer/publisher relationship. They have the power. Unless you can get your game onto a shelf and marketed without them, they always will be. But, you might just be able to become totally self-sufficient if you want to; as long as you don't believe that you'll be an industry player overnight.
Until Slashdot fixes the funny modifier, use insightful or interesting. The poster knows your intentions.
Look at any game by id Software. You'll see the "id" logo prominently on the box. There's no mistaking who made that game when you look at the box. Ditto anything by Blizzard. Squaresoft/Square-Enix. Valve. Bioware, to some extent. Sure, in all these cases the publisher will be listed too (there will certainly be an "Activision" somewhere on the box of a game by id) but the developer is given high billing.
Why? Because the publishers ARE trying to do the marketing, distributing, etc. and they know that there are fans that will look at a game by Blizzard, or id, or what have you, and buy it for that reason.
This is no different than in Hollywood. There are some directors/writers/etc. that are big enough names that people will go see their movies specifically because it's one of theirs. And, certainly, there are other directors/etc. that may make quality movies, but don't yet have that recognition. It doesn't mean they suck. In the game industry, there aren't necessarily INDIVIDUALS that are like this, but rather development groups.
If a developer continues to create innovative and popular games, they will get the recognition they deserve. Naughty Dog has done some good games, this is true, but when you think of big developers, they aren't one that comes to mind. If they succeed over time, it will come.
I think Jason Rubin is longing for the days past when EA tried to market their deveopers like artists. Remember the bios and pictures that were included in every EA game in days past? I think Mr. Rubin and his Naughty Dog partner were featured in at least one of those (Keef the Thief?) as well.
The question of course is, in a dev team of 20+ people who gets the rock star status? Jason Rubin or that guy 3 cubes down who is the genious behind graphics engine?
Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws. -Plato
It seems that he is talking about two different things. It seems that letting in a celebrity is a case where they are trying to make gaming look cool. "Look hollywood celebrity X thinks games are cool! That means that liking games makes you cool too!"
The issue of not giving designers enough credit is something else. Even in Hollywood, for every Lucas there are a million other people who make competent work and go unknown. Let's face it, even one of the biggest directors is probably much less reccognizable than the biggest actor simply because the directors are not on camera. The same holds true of game designers. By the nature of their work they can't really get as much screen time as an actor, so they will be less well known.
I don't think the case of EA taking the glory for a film is that unusual. How many films does someone like Mirimax or Lion's Gate just buy and put their name on it and get the credit for putting out quality films?
Certainly designers do deserve more credit, but to compare designers level of celebrity to an actress is to compare apples and oranges.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I think this is just a reality check showing how the huge media companies don't rule just the music industry. Note that most major game publishers are owned by the same massive corporations that own the music labels. Developers are next to nothing in today's market without shelf space and that space is owned by the publishers. You want top shelf, huge promotional posters in stores, TV commercials? Then you need to go to somebody with those capabilities. :x
Needless to say it was super-embarrasing to be seen as a hanger-on at an event that is supposedly in my honor.
The business is there for itself, no one else. Those people want to hang with rockstars/game designers because it makes them feel better about themselves and their lack of creative talent. They're 9-5ers at heart, employees with an employee mentality, but still want a cool rock n' roll job. Who the creative folks they're hangin with/sucking off of are is the most unimportant part to these parasites (hence, no one bothering to put me on the guestlist), we're just a tool for them to get the valuable product they need.
In the record businiess record producers and musicians used to run labels, now it's cut-throat businessmen. I remember when folks like Richard Gariott and Ken Williams *made* the games they sold....
Why not go back to the individual programmers? If you say the developers should be treated like authors are in the book world, the effect will be that developers' names will get bought up, programmers will get fired, and crap will be paraded around just to capitalize on the name.
If you're going to go to the actual content, use nintendo or square's 'dream team' concepts -- they *always* used to tout the people who worked on the game, and each had their own individual feel.
Read jack phelps dot net
But the publisher usually owns the trademarks, and usually hires the developer, not the other way around... Usually because the developer isn't the one providing the overall funding for the project, the publisher, or more properly, the publishing group, does.
But what happens is the more one group funds this kind of project, the more they line their pockets with the profits, if any, while the others are kinda menials, necessary evils with little control over the project's lifecycle.
The only way I see for developer companies to get out of this is to deal directly with financing companies, and publish their own games. Partly because publishing companies won't hire themselves to developers(they'd get the short end of the contract, and they wouldn't like it), invidivuals involved in publishing might however. Of course, large companies like EA might take a gimlet eye to smaller companies throwing off their yoke, but that's just the point, it IS a yoke, meant to keep money in the pockets of people who already have it(capitalism at work) and away from people who know how to do a thing, but need money to get the materials/time to do them...
It reminds me a bit of the situation with individual artists, most artists sign away their firstborn to the record label, usually on directives from on high inside the riaa-member companies, who are less and less involved in the creation process(or who are involved, to hinder it, creating "commercial, carbon-copy" acts instead of artists). And when napster came out(wasn't the riaa happy it could say napster helped pirates... if it would have gotten all those independant artists a tribune, what a disaster(from the riaa's perspective) that would have been. Notice how mp3.com who used to have some independant artists selling tracks got coopted?
That's business as usual in corporate America. CEO's and board chairman are always tooting their own horns with hardly any recognition given to the underlings who actually perform the work.
No sig for you!!
I guess this is not viable for consoles, but it's a nice way to work if you make computer games. So, if you can develop quality games on a low budget... what to do? Publish them as shareware! In time, with some luck and a lot of hard work, your company may become big enough to make more complex games and publish them boxed.
Examples of this? iD, Ambrosia, Freeverse, Pangea, and Bungie.
Circumcision is child abuse.
A lot of the appeal of celebrities is SEX appeal. This includes film, TV, and music celebrities. Of course, athletes are somewhat different, in that the famous ones are predominantly men being watched by a male audience. However, the athlete's appeal, while not sexual is physical in any case (strength, agility, etc).
In any case, both of these kinds of appeal manifest themselves visually.
On the contrary, there are lots of skilled people in the entertainment industry who do the bulk of the work who are not lavished with attention -- screenwriters, for example, or cinematographers, sound engineers, and producers.
These are people who benefit neither from name recognition nor the constant attention of the camera. (A few directors, like some game developers, do at least attain some celebrity occasionally owing to name recognition, i.e. "branding.")
In my experience, good developers DO get recognized, maybe not by the publisher, but gamers, magazines and websites will note the developer.
The thing is, good developers are rare, and mediocre developers are a dime a dozen.
In an industry that is dominated more and more by rehashed formulas, dead mules beating beaten for 4 or 5 more sequals, and games whose whole concept is "hey, what if we made a game with all these chicks in like bikinis and they could jump around and shit. Oh we could have them play Volleyball! dude wouldn't that be awsome" the job of the developer is being replaced more and more by code monkies and marketing.
The point being, developers of many games that come out are nothing special, so why should they be treated like that, and from a publishers viewpoint, why excert the time and money to create a rockstar persona for a really awsome developer when they could just shit-can him and higher a few people to make Grand Theft Auto Elevendy Two or Dead or Alive: Naked Chicks on Trampolines.
Good developers do it because they love making games, poor developers don't deserve recognition anyway.
Famous Last Words: "hmm...wikipedia says it's edible"
But now you're talking about people who've built up their reputation for years, and worked darned hard doing it. They're artists, not a walking brand icon. Anybody who feels slighted by their fame has their head up their ass.
Game developers are terrible dressers
Remember when the only company you ever saw a game box or even in the credits was just the publisher?
It will change, just give it time. I certainly know I never bought a game because it was published by Interplay, but I've damned near picked up every title I've ever seen made by Black Isle.
Sid Meyer = a Good Sim.
"Two Guys from Andromeda" = a Good Comedy in Space.
John Carmack = a Great First Person Shooter.
Richard Garriot = a Great RPG.
We used to do it to our games, then somewhere around the mid '90s computer companies stopped caring about the development cycle, and started caring more about the quantity of titles published... From that point, it de-personalized the industry, and you no longer could count on a particular company to consistently put out good products. Then companies were eaten up by others (Bards Tale by Broderbund, then Interplay; Origin; Sierra), programmers leave, marketers milk name recognition until the gamers flee...
And again, like the stock market, we are now finding out that it's time to get back to basics. There never was a New Economy, just the old one all along... get your company to put out Good Products, and the user base will appear, and is dying to be loyal; just look at Blizzard software, with a consistently high quality line of products, and they're rolling in money. We've been kicked around by buggy software, poor support, shoddy sequels for far too long....
A developer label or splash screen is about as meaningful as the production studio for a movie. Does anyone really associate American Zoetrope with quality despite the fact it's Francis Ford Coppolas's company? Well, that depends on if you think "Jeepers Creepers" has any relation to "The Godfather" or even "Lost in Translation" in quality.
Fact of the matter is, developer (company) don't mean much.
Now if you've got a hot shot game designer then sure he's got some attention. Peter Molynux, Shigeru Miyamoto, Will Wright, John Carmack. They ARE on the level of Tom Hanks and Steven Spielberg. Sure, they don't say "John Carmack's Quake VII" or "Will Right's Sim City V," they can't all be Sid Mieir (who incidentally heavily borrowed the concept of Civilization from an identically named Avalon Hill board game which later became its video game. Avalon Hill ceased publishing Civilization and Advanced Civilization and was bought up by Hasbro upon implosion. Now all they sell is Risk shit).
John Romero's Daikatana.
It's a bit funny, because at the 2001 GDC Mr. Rubin had a talk entitled "Coming Out Of the Garage". He spoke about how independent developers need to "grow up" in order to get out of the garage, and how they need to accept publishers as vital to the process of game development. Guess he's seen what happens from that attitude. ;)
Make no mistake about it, the publisher holds most of the cards. The developer is at the publisher's whim for the most part, since the publisher holds the purse strings. The few developers you see that are recognized, namely id, Blizzard, etc, were first successful outside of publisher influence. Take id for example; they started with shareware games. Even before DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D they had Commander Keen. Once DOOM hit the big time through shareware channels, id was able to negotiate a favorable deal with publishers to get the game on shelves. Their next games were sweet deals with publishers because they were already recognized; the Quake games had practically guaranteed audiences, the publisher just needed to get boxes on the shelves.
And, for the apologists that say the developer takes big risks, I'll have to call you on that bullshit. Great game development studios go out of business all the time, so obviously some risk is assumed by the developers as well, even if they have a wildly successful game series.
The main problem, in my opinion, is that games cost a lot to develop these days, and small companies rarely have the money to create a modern game. In the past, creating a game like Wolf3D was the result of a fairly small team of people. These days you need lots of developers to create high production value assets; the market demands the shiniest graphics and the coolest explosions. A great game without the expected level of polish is going to be ignored for the most part.
Yes, I realize that some people can look past the exterior to see a great game, but it's SO much easier to market a prettier game. My own game Meridian 59 shows this perfectly. The game has a DOOM-type software rendering engine, and gets consistently passed over in favor of the newer, shinier competitor. We've tried to develop a game that offers what other games on the market lack, namely balanced and fun Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Yeah, this is considered a niche market, but not as niche as our subscriber numbers might otherwise indicate. (As a note, we are working on a significant engine upgrade. [Warning: large images.])
In the end, publishers hold all the cards, and the developers aren't going to be able to do much about it. The real power lies in the game buyers, who can choose to either buy what's marketed to them, or they can go look for the independent game developers that are creating innovative products. But, for now, the alternative to taking publisher money is to focus on smaller-scale niche titles by developing a taste for Ramen noodles. There's a reason why the phrase "starving artist" exists.
My thoughts,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that movies and games are already fairly similar in the way they are promoted and perceived.
First comes the title.
Movies = Jaws (I, II, etc.)
Game = Doom (I, II, etc.)
Second comes the onscreen talent. This is who everyone knows and loves.
Movies = Bill Murray
Games = Crash Bandicoot
Then most people don't know anything after that.
Do you know who directed/wrote/produced "Stripes"? Probably not. Same with games. The studios don't control this, the people do. They fall in love with the MOVIE or the GAME. If you aren't in it... too bad.
Anyway, it's not the public that decides what game designers get hired and what they get to do. Production companies know who good designers/writers/directors are and will hopefully hire them.
If you want fame and easy access to parties, you're just on the wrong side of the screen.
Who is Sid Meyer?
It is easier to build strong children than to repair broken men. -Frederick Douglass
publishers dont hang on to decent talent long enough to make stars out of them.
to expect a company like EA to put a dev logo or a programmers name on the box is stupid, because EA will be dismanlting the dev team or firing the programmer within a couple of months anyway.
and for the most part they wont follow up the game with much support anyway, so its not like they have to hold on to a name so you can know that the person that dev'd the game really wants to make it right and fix any issues you've found.
The point was that Daikatana wasn't a "bad" game, it just didn't live up to the hype. And yes there was a lot of hype.
Developers should stick with what they need to do, make good games. If they want to be celebraties, they should switch jobs.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
Let's not forget the fact that GoD threw some absolutely KILLER parties. The Promised Lot is still the greatest event that I have ever attended.
They were all about being one with the gaming community and working with its developers. You can't get much better than that. I think the closest things we still have to that are companies like Ritual and Epic.
BS. They were all about being full of themselves and blowing the majority of their budget on vanity swimsuit model calendars. It was all talk.