Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Game Companies Prepare for Next Console War

Posted by Zonk on from the game-making-is-expensive dept.

domanova writes "The BBC has an article up about the difficulties games companies will face in the next round of the console war. I don't play games, and my programming is in a different world, but the last lines of the article struck a cord. "Mr Hasson said games developers were beginning to realise that they had to be more business-like. 'There are still some developers who were involved in games from the bedroom coding days. Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop.'"

79 comments

  1. Struck a cord? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Struck a chord...

    1. Re:Struck a cord? by Fr05t · · Score: 1

      Maybe he tripped over his consoles power cord, or perhaps he was hit with a cord. Cords often strike when you least expect them.

  2. what??? by xerxesVII · · Score: 5, Insightful

    "Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop."
    i realize this is a business guy making the statement, but god...
    peer group approval is what gives us the crazy stuff like katamari damacy, warioware, and others. if that stops, we get stuck with nothing but incremental sequels to racing games, sports franchises, and the army men series.

    --
    "We shall grapple with the ineffable, and see if we may not eff it after all." - Douglas Adams
    1. Re:what??? by Fr05t · · Score: 2, Insightful

      " if that stops, we get stuck with nothing but incremental sequels to racing games, sports franchises, and the army men series."

      I thought we already were. New creative games are becoming far and few between. It's sad but soon enough the "mainstream" game industry will be the same as Hollywood cranking out the same crap over and over again. Once and awhile there will be something new, but for the most part anything genuinely new will be from (or at least I hope) small independent game companies showing their thing at indie-game festivals.

    2. Re:what??? by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 3, Interesting

      He's got two problems:

      1) Is that most "peer group" targetted games fail. Mostly they appeal to too small a segment of the population to make any money even if they make it out of development. Many don't get that far as they get too complex and too niche.

      2) Games like Katamari Damacy that come out of left field screw up his pre-existing business of selling licensed sports games, another FPS with fancy new graphics etc. etc. I.e. innovation takes away some of his market share. Until he owns it, he's losing money.

      This isn't really new. Look at Hollywood. Most movies are nothing but old ideas with new faces designed to target a specific market and get some easy cash. But we do rarely get a new, good movie that stands above the rest. They're hard to pick out, but they're out there.

      Businessmen are classically short sighted. They only see things as they are now, and make decisions that way. Once something new comes in they're scared until they can make money from it. Then they love it. If you made a bundle off every gas powered car sale, wouldn't you be afraid of someone who sold electric cars?

  3. This HAS TO STOP!!! by AtariAmarok · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop."

    Just what we need: more games designed for approval by committees of the type that think "Elektra will be a great hit movie!", and fewer games designed for game-players.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:This HAS TO STOP!!! by Squatchman · · Score: 1

      Peer approval won't feed your family.

    2. Re:This HAS TO STOP!!! by maddskillz · · Score: 1

      Actually, I think Peer approval won't get your stockholders rich would be more approriate

    3. Re:This HAS TO STOP!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If all I wanted was to feed my family I would be a farmer.

  4. I would argue that... by larsoncc · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The problems in the game industry stem, in large part, from being TOO "business-like".

    --
    Video Game News, FAQs, etc
    1. Re:I would argue that... by Moby+Cock · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Here, here. I would agree. I am concerned that the games industry will go the way of Hollywood. That is, controlled by huge corporate entities that tend to homogenize content. We see some of that already in games. For example: Medal of Honour was a great game that had interesting content and was fresh, now there are at least 50 WWII themed games and more to come. This is what happens in Hollywood too. When a film (or TV show) is a hit, there are countless bullshit knock-offs to carpet bomb the public. LOTR was well recived and fresh, and this spawned turds like Troy, Alexander and that Crusade movie due out this year. The are reducing LOTR to the epic battles and missing the point that the story was compelling not just the cool action stuff.

      I fear this is the future of the games industry. One or two really good titles a year and then hundreds of cheap imitation and derivative works. I hope I'm wrong and that the industry can use the new hardware to really show us something new and special, but I have my doubts.

    2. Re:I would argue that... by Lu+Xun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think the "90% of everything is crap" ratio comes into effect here. There are still some great movies released, you have have to look for them. Even if the game industry gets overwhelmed with 1001 "me too!" clonegames, good games will still be produced. Even mods can create a great game experience, even if the original game wasn't so hot. You just have to ignore the crap.

      --
      That's not a soda... it's a caffeine delivery device!
  5. It's supposed to be an art - by Japong · · Score: 1

    I don't think the developers should ever have to be more business-like, at least not in the ideal situation. There's is supposed to be a creative job, akin to being the director of a film. Yes, there's a ton of technical aspects involved, but the main purpose of the game should be to make it as creative and fun as possible. It is the place of the producers/publishers to worry about the actual costs.

    It's pretty obvious that given some freedom and a large amount of financial support, a talented team will produce a fun product, like Valve with Half-Life 2. Of course, not eveyone will have these resources, but canning games into a business-like cost-benefit ration will stifle creativity.

    It's like telling a master painter it would be cheaper to just take a photograph.

    1. Re:It's supposed to be an art - by Moby+Cock · · Score: 1

      Yes, the industry needs to protect and cherish its auteurs like Meier and Molyneux. There are the Woody Allen's of the game industry and their work is threatened by corporate homogenisation.

    2. Re:It's supposed to be an art - by johannesg · · Score: 1
      It's pretty obvious that given some freedom and a large amount of financial support, a talented team will produce a fun product, like Valve with Half-Life 2

      ...or like 3D Realms with Duke Nukem Forever!

    3. Re:It's supposed to be an art - by jessecurry · · Score: 1

      I think that in the article they are referring the development house when they say developers. And I doubt that the author is against the idea of an independent game, he is simply pointing out the fact that as games become more complicated there will be a need for a greater number of people and a larger amount of money to complete a game.
      As the resources required to make a game increase so does the financial risk. Previously a small company could probably have weathered a bad title, but now the cost of making that title could bankrupt a company if the title flops.
      Peer approval is still important in the game industry, but for a development house to keep its doors open it will need to come up with at least some commercially successful games.

      --
      Those who know, do not speak. Those who speak, do not know. ~Lao Tzu
    4. Re:It's supposed to be an art - by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 1

      You're wrong. Developers need to think like businessmen too.

      It's quite possible to develop the concept of something, work out it's details and figure out what it's going to be, then right before you implement it or seek funding, stop. Then think more practically. Who wants this, how do I know? How much is this going to cost to develop? How many people are going to like this? Then maybe change some things to make it more palatable to someone who would pay for it.

      Artists have been doing this for ages, the best artists figure out how to convey their message or idea, or whatever it is that's the spirit of their creation, yet still make it palatable to people who would fund their work. Sometimes they even make things that are downright insulting to their owners but well disguised.

  6. Planetside by shamowfski · · Score: 1

    Sony has run Planetside into the ground. They are so busy trying to bring in new money that they refuse to consider the current players. They have made several changes that may have brought in a few new players but still overall lost money because of the old players they drove away. Game companies need to stop thinking about making money because if the game is crap I'm probably just going to pirate it anyway....

    1. Re:Planetside by Jerf · · Score: 1

      Game companies need to stop thinking about making money because if the game is crap I'm probably just going to pirate it anyway....

      Or you might consider, you know, not playing it at all?

      I'm not saying this as an anti-pirate screed. I'm saying, don't you have better things to do than play crappy games? (Unless it's a springboard for other projects, but that's a rare case.)

  7. struck a CHORD, damnit by Atrax · · Score: 1

    a CHORD!

    --
    Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    1. Re:struck a CHORD, damnit by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      Just picture the summary writer running across an open space and getting clotheslined. It's clearly the mental image he was going for, and the pure humor of it will ease that tension issue you seem to be dealing with. :)

    2. Re:struck a CHORD, damnit by Atrax · · Score: 1

      Just picture the summary writer running across an open space and getting clotheslined.

      good picture. I like that one.

      --
      Screw you all! I'm off to the pub
    3. Re:struck a CHORD, damnit by spectral · · Score: 1

      that was a horrible pun, and if I could, I'd find a way to punish you for it.

  8. Who has to stop? by IndiJ · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Mr Hasson said games developers were beginning to realise that they had to be more "business-like".
    "There are still some developers who were involved in games from the bedroom coding days.
    "Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop."

    Mr. Fred Hasson appears to be a bloody fool. If games are no longer made for peer-group approval by like minded peers, they'll be like movies made for focus-group approval by bottom-line conscious busybodies - bland, homogenized and utterly uninspiring.

    He may have some basis in common sense though. Developing games is becoming harder and harder to do for small developers. But instead of forcing independent game developers to fold or become hollywood schlockmongers, maybe the industry should find ways to make development easier so games can be developed by people that will make great games, instead of just big hits.

    --
    It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
    1. Re:Who has to stop? by ivan256 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Developing games is becoming harder and harder to do for small developers.

      That's just not true though. Developing games that appeal to gamers who are interested into shooting their friends from the first person perspective with cutting-edge detail is harder, yes. There are plenty of small developers that continue to do just fine by appealing to those of us who are more interested in gameplay though.

      If you want to make a high profile game that is going to sell millions of copies, you can go Hollywood and take your chance that your non-movie-licensed title will be the one in twenty to make it, or you can concentrate on a smaller audience and overall game quality you can respect yourself in the morning and probably put food on the table...

      The reason we're seeing comments like this is not because the independant game developer has gone away, but because as the games market has grown and tons of marketing dollars have been poured into the market, the smaller developers have slipped off the radar. Remember that the journalistic machine is lubricated with cash... I'd bet more people play independant games than mainstream games (think about all those flash games, PDA games, etc...), but the trade rags only write about the ones that produce advertising dollars.

    2. Re:Who has to stop? by Gulthek · · Score: 1

      Developing games is becoming harder and harder to do for small developers. ...instead of forcing independent game developers to fold or become hollywood schlockmongers....

      One need only look at the success of Alien Hominid to counter this argument. Simple, fun games are still well within the grasp of the independent developer.

    3. Re:Who has to stop? by IndiJ · · Score: 1
      The reason we're seeing comments like this is not because the independant game developer has gone away, but because as the games market has grown and tons of marketing dollars have been poured into the market, the smaller developers have slipped off the radar.

      Both you and Gulthek have valid points - Gulthek even names a counter example: Alien Hominid. I would add Katamari Damacy too, but I don't know if that was developed by an independent or Namco itself.

      But you're arguing that what we're getting is a schism between big budgets (money and/or hardware budget) and big imaginations. What I'm arguing is that it's possible to have big budgets and big imaginations - provided you put the time and effort into putting that big budget to good use. It's not about being either forced to make hollyschlock games and NHL/NBA/ESPN 2010 Turbo or settling for flash games and/or "budget" titles.

      Adding ties and business power suits will not make for better games, as TFA seems to argue. But adding dedicated developers who genuinely enjoy what they're doing and who are *gasp* gamers just might. There's no need to eschew big budgets and heavy spending - it just needs to be spent right. That Hasson dude is advocating exactly the wrong way to do that.

      However, making an A-class title is a massive undertaking, requiring real project management, and good business practices to turn a profit. That's a problem, because it means that in order to make a top-notch game, an otherwise skilled and creative team has to be Managed, with a capital M, and things like music, images and models become "assets" instead of artwork. My position is that if games were somehow easier to develop, smaller companies could produce software comparable to the bigshots - which will encourage more innovation at the front lines of the industry, not just the bargain bin (or online) - because they won't have all the management overhead.

      I guess my point is if project management was trivial and invisible, better games would be made because more time could be spent making them (instead of worrying about being more "business-like"). The process becomes cheaper so more players can play on the same field. And hence, there would be more diversity and innovation.

      --
      It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
    4. Re:Who has to stop? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The free market always makes the best choices for everything. Didn't you get the memo?

      Britney Spears is a better musician then Glenn Gould because she's sold more. Eminem is a better poet than Baudelaire because he's sold more. Come on, this is common sense. Why would people buy something the most if it wasn't the best in every category? People always make rational choices, and are not affected by advertising. And if they actually are affected, then the advertising is of course rational.

    5. Re:Who has to stop? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      But you're arguing that what we're getting is a schism between big budgets (money and/or hardware budget) and big imaginations. What I'm arguing is that it's possible to have big budgets and big imaginations - provided you put the time and effort into putting that big budget to good use.

      The problem is that creativity doesn't guarantee, or even drive sales in big budget titles. Creative gameplay will sell your game to a niche audience, but once you go big budget you need broad appeal. To get your big budget in the first place you need to promise that the gameplay of your game will be based on some previously successful title, or you need to deliver a movie/sports/TV character license. Nobody is going to give you a big budget to play around with if you're not producing something that isn't related to something tried and true, so in reality is *isn't* possible to have big budgets and big imaginations.

      Independant titles don't have this problem because anybody can get a small budget. Not having to appeal to your financiers frees you to explore, and having low expenses to recoup frees you appeal to a narrow audience. If your idea works there and turns out to have broader appeal, then you have a jumping off point into the big budget arena. In that case though you still haven't made a convincing argument about life becoming more difficult for smaller developers.

    6. Re:Who has to stop? by IndiJ · · Score: 1

      Dude, you've argued yourself into a corner.

      Nobody is going to give you a big budget to play around with if you're not producing something that isn't related to something tried and true...

      However:

      Not having to appeal to your financiers frees you to explore, and having low expenses to recoup frees you appeal to a narrow audience. If your idea works there and turns out to have broader appeal, then you have a jumping off point into the big budget arena.

      Ding! Ding! Ding!

      And for the money shot:

      Nobody is going to give you a big budget...

      And that's about the crux of it. I never said that big budgets should just be given. Let the budget developers produce games that stand out and they will get the sales and earn the cash to make the A-list games. Oh sure, there will be those that do manage to secure financial backers from the start, without proving that they can make innovative and fun games. But if games are cheaper and easier to make it will be easier for smaller game developers to earn the budgets they need for A-titles, plus big financial backing will make less difference in the quality of the output. Thus the playing field is levelled.

      Now, I could take you to task for this:

      The problem is that creativity doesn't guarantee, or even drive sales in big budget titles.

      But i think that fallacy speaks for itself. In fact, you said it yourself:

      ...you need to promise that the gameplay of your game will be based on some previously successful title...

      Now, where do these "previously" successful titles come from? Innovative ideas! At the very least, an innovative twist on an old theme. You are arguing that the only way a game will sell big is if it is like the competition and/or previous games. That's demonstrably crap (the top 20 games by sales here is a who's who of innovative and non-formulaic gaming for the past 20 years, with a few notable exceptions (Harry Potter???)).

      Your view of how games should be made = more of the same (and explicitly so). Mine = probably more of the same, but with a far, far bigger chance for something new to come out of left field.

      --
      It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
    7. Re:Who has to stop? by ivan256 · · Score: 1

      You are arguing that the only way a game will sell big is if it is like the competition and/or previous games.

      Hell no, I'm not saying that. I'm saying the only way you'll end up with a big budget for your game is if it's like the (successful) competition or like previous games. There's a huge difference there. A big budget doesn't imply success, and success doesn't imply a big budget.

      That's demonstrably crap (the top 20 games by sales here is a who's who of innovative and non-formulaic gaming for the past 20 years, with a few notable exceptions (Harry Potter???)).

      You're kidding, right? That list is practically proof that the development market works as I've described. Thirteen out of the twenty on that list are either sequels of successful games with essentially the same gameplay (Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo 3, Monkey Island 2, etc..), character/world licenses (Mario Anything, Zelda, Neverwinter Nights, Metroid), or direct ripoffs of an independant title (Tetris). There are exactly two games on that list that are both "big budget" and groudbreaking. Deus Ex, and Half-Life... and Half-Life is a stretch since it fints into the tried and true first person shooter category. Sure, there are innovative developers on that list, but almost none that made it to the list on their groundbreaking title.

      But if games are cheaper and easier to make it will be easier for smaller game developers to earn the budgets they need for A-titles, plus big financial backing will make less difference in the quality of the output.

      That is essentially what I'm saying, except that I don't think you *need* a big budget to develop an "A-title" (unless you define "A-title" as one that uses all the latest whiz-bang hardware features), and I don't think that it is expensive or difficult for smaller developers to make games. Cheaper and Easier would be better, but it's already cheap and easy. (To *develop*... Success is a different story.) It sounds like you're saying that big financial backing *improves* the quality of the output though, and I don't think that is true at all.

    8. Re:Who has to stop? by IndiJ · · Score: 1
      I'm saying the only way you'll end up with a big budget for your game is if it's like the (successful) competition or like previous games.

      I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this - i believe that your game being different, however slightly, makes a hit of it.

      You're kidding, right? That list is practically proof that the development market works as I've described.

      That's to be expected since the industry currently develops the way you describe. But try mapping that list onto two other lists.

      First, correlate it with the list of games that just cloned or slightly improved on an existing formula. It doesn't add up. Take Super Mario 64 for example - there are hundreds and hundreds of similar games, but SM64 was the one that started the whole genre. The Sims? Nuff said. Many, many games that are similar or sequels to Final Fantasy 7, but it was the great 3d rpg innovator that made the list - where are FF8 or 9? Or X or X-2 for that matter? Myst (where is Riven or Exile?), Half-Life, Super Mario Brothers, all of them were games that introduced new innovations and aspects to gaming - or at least ther respective genres - and are mostly remembered for standing out and being different/better.

      Now try correlating it to another list - a list of the most innovative, most influential or even just most memorable games of all time. Like this one. There is considerable overlap.

      Only a fool would argue that my ideal is how the industry works now - that dude's comments alone show how untrue that is, and how much less true it's getting every day. But I think I've got enough evidence to show that innovation drives success, not copying previous success - so logically the industry should develop games based on the goal of innovation.

      Incidently:

      (unless you define "A-title" as one that uses all the latest whiz-bang hardware features)

      That's not a requirement, although it makes common sense. If you're not using all the features available, you might as well not be developing an A-class game. Hell, we could all just run games on refurbished Commodore64s.

      A-list games will be the groundbreakers - the ones that either create new gameplay experiences or make old ones more immersive/fun than they have ever been before. Clearly there's room for games that don't quite use the state of the art's full resources, but there's a lot more room for games that do.

      It sounds like you're saying that big financial backing *improves* the quality of the output though, and I don't think that is true at all.

      I don't think it's necessarily true either - you misunderstand me. Big money doesn't make games better, it just gives the developers more choices, and more expressive power. That power may or may not be used (properly), and even if it is, it may or may not make for a better game. But there's still a chance that wasn't there before.

      --
      It's hard to soar like an eagle when you're surrounded by turkeys.
  9. They tried this already... by Tepshen · · Score: 1

    .. Back when they decided it would be a good business move to release a game to coincide with the realease of the E.T. movie. We all know where that suave business aproach got us. Landfills anyone?

    1. Re:They tried this already... by freqres · · Score: 1

      But playing the E.T. game is just like the business practices of Hollywood and soon to be the video game industry. Example: Damn it, fell in a hole. Try to get out of the hole. Nope, fell again. Try to get out of the hole. Nope, fell again. Try to get out of the hole. Nope, fell again. Try to get out of the hole. HURRAH, GOT OUT OF THE HOLE!!! Shit, fell in another hole.

      --
      Rampant Ninja related crimes these days...Whitehouse is not the exception
    2. Re:They tried this already... by arose · · Score: 1
      They didn't have the right bussiness model back then:
      1. Crapy game based on popular license
      2. Market, Hype and PR it into a must have
      3. Profit!
      --
      Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
    3. Re:They tried this already... by Tepshen · · Score: 1
      This sounds alot like what blizzard is doing with the Starcraft:Ghost game except they've added a few steps...
      1. Crapy game based on popular license
      2. Market, Hype and PR it into a must have
      3. Sit on your ass for a few years
      4. Decide the game isnt going in the right direction
      5. Start over from scratch
      6. ???
      7. Profit!!!!

  10. He's saying it from a perspective of cost... by the_skywise · · Score: 3, Interesting

    By "peer group approval" I think he means that teams and developers are getting bogged down in making the "perfect" game or a work of art that will be approved by 99% of the world instead of 90%.

    It takes a lot of cost and effort to get that last 10% and it breaks the back of a lot of companies. So in business sense, it's better to ship a product that's "good enough" than to never ship one at all because it wasn't "great".

    As a consumer of games, yeah that's a moronic statement! We want GREAT games!
    But in reality it doesn't pay the bills. Unfortunately it also means we're going to get saddled with commodity games... like "Aviator: The flight simulator"

    1. Re:He's saying it from a perspective of cost... by spectral · · Score: 1

      That's not at all like how I read it. What I think they're saying is that there are still a few, ever decreasing number of developers that are developing the games they want to see, and that they're doing it so that other game developers/gamers would like it.

      Meanwhile, you have joe consumer who comes along and has been fed only the big franchise games, and hates this game that is by gamers, for gamers.

      Essentially, think of it like indie music or movies. They're doing it for themselves, or for their friends, or whatever. It might be nice if it gets popular and makes them millions, but that's not what they're aiming for.. otherwise they'd sell out, get some big name studio to turn it in to the same crap that everyone else is, and then they'd have their money and their fame and none of their integrity or self-respect.

      So, why now must all game developers cater to the mainstream masses and just turn out the same iterative crap as everyone else?

  11. Peer approval companies by yndrd · · Score: 1

    Hmmmm...didn't EA start out as a company interested in peer approval? I'm almost certain that Interplay did--they sold themselves that way on their packaging, anyway.

    I'd much rather buy a game designed by a gamer than by an executive.

    At least market competition can't stop open sourcers from doing that--just from making money doing it. Maybe this is the coming age of the artist game developer.

    1. Re:Peer approval companies by mrseigen · · Score: 1

      Yeah, EA's original pitch (I'm paraphrasing) was "We treat our developers like rock stars".

      Fast forward to the sixteenth Sims expansion pack... what happened?

    2. Re:Peer approval companies by blacklite001 · · Score: 1

      I remember that! EA is such a pile of shit now. Sigh.

    3. Re:Peer approval companies by superpulpsicle · · Score: 1

      What EA is doing is something new. Imagine IBM bought out every profitable software company before it reached its prime. There would be no oracle, redhat, microsoft, peoplesoft, HP, compaq etc.

      EA is virtually attempting to buy everything! There has never been anything like this in the history of any industry. No one knows the outcome.

    4. Re:Peer approval companies by tepples · · Score: 1

      EA's original pitch (I'm paraphrasing) was "We treat our developers like rock stars".

      That is, until the GTA series, when another company proved that it could out-rockstar EA.

  12. Everybody develops for their peer group. by Picass0 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Singers suround themselves with other singers. Actors surround themselves with other actors. A person in any trade is going to seek the feedback of others within their profession before seeking the opinion of outsiders.

    "Hey, I'm going to medical school to learn to ACT!"
    "I have 20 years experience as a chef, and I want a job as a reporter."
    "I work at Jiffy Lube, and I wanna write video games"

    Gamers develop games for other gamers and they know what they want. And it isn't "Deer hunter".

    1. Re:Everybody develops for their peer group. by FroBugg · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Close, but not quite. The line from the article roughly translates to:

      "I have an MBA, and I wanna write video games."

    2. Re:Everybody develops for their peer group. by salesgeek · · Score: 1


      "I have an MBA, and I wanna write video games."

      And that is precicely why you should not.

      --
      -- $G
  13. More Business nonsense written my MBAs by neomage86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    These type of decisions are made by people who understand business but have no understanding of the gaming industry. Are they really arrogant enough think that with a 2-year MBA they understand the needs of a specific industry better than content to producers who have been in it since the 80's. Producing for their peers is exactly what they should be doing. Coders peers will be among the most discerning critics. Only by pushing each other to new levels will Game producers ever achieve the next level of realism.

  14. Something that struck me by SimianOverlord · · Score: 1

    I recently spent a considerable sum on a number of games I'd wanted to own for quite a while. I got into an arguement with my girlfriend about the money, and I pointed out to her that 30 pounds worth of game was likely to entertain me for about 30 hours or more, whereas a 10 pound DVD would work for about an hour and a half.

    One of the major drawbacks of having games companies behave more like movie film makers is that these games are going to start reducing in play time. Just as films are manufactured to be watchable in an hour and a half, it makes more economic sense for the staff working on a game to cut back when the time to play reaches 20 hours or so, and start working on something else. At the moment, its an artists work with some of these games - the game is finished when the story is finished, never mind financial considerations.

    --
    Meine Schwester ist sehr, sehr reizvoll - Nietzsche
    1. Re:Something that struck me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      30 pounds worth of game

      When I first read that, I thought, that's a buttload of games - most of them don't even weigh a pound.

    2. Re:Something that struck me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I disagree. Films don't finish after an hour and a half because the director decides he's had enough - they finish because nobody's going to sit down for six hours to watch a movie. Think of all the extra scenes you get on the DVD version.

      Games don't have that limitation because you don't have to play them in a single sitting.

  15. Death? by Bloomy · · Score: 1
    [Jason Kingsley] added: "We have been through five technology transitions and survived so far ... Each one has involved the death of some people.

    I hope that's a British synonym for laid off. From watching the Office, I thought the word over there was redundancy.

    1. Re:Death? by cluke · · Score: 1
      We told you the next gen of console wars were going to be bloody!!


      (And no, it isn't any sort of synonym for being laid off I've ever heard. I guess he means the death of some *companies*.)

  16. Don't knock it. by AtariAmarok · · Score: 1

    Don't knock it. My driveway pavement and lawn furniture are made of compressed and melted Atari 2600 "ET" game carts.

    --
    Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
    1. Re:Don't knock it. by Dmala · · Score: 3, Funny

      When you pull into your driveway, do you randomly fall into an invisible pit that it takes you four hours to escape from?

    2. Re:Don't knock it. by Tepshen · · Score: 1

      Only on the nights that I drink.

    3. Re:Don't knock it. by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      Quit your griping! I can beat ET in five minutes. You know, it was the Daikatana of its day.

  17. Flock to Indie Games by FozzieCDN · · Score: 1

    This is the very attitude that is the problem with the games industry today. Funded developers are being forced to make decisions based on some bean-counters desire to make *more* money so that they can justify a big bonus or raise.

    But on the flip side I must thank them for opening up more doors for people like myself to sweep in as Independant game developers. We can provide the niche products that gamers still want but the studios won't do because it doesn't automaticly guarentee a million units or more in sales off the bat.

  18. Coffee House Video Games by ayersrj · · Score: 1

    There's a reason why the "Indie Film" industry is booming, making a lot of money, and winning a lot of awards, and it's because they're doing what the opposite of what this guy says.

    I think you're going to see the same with Video Games in the future. As EA, Vivendi and the others turn into the massive "Studios" lots of little guys are going to put out some amazing stuff and make a lot of money because it isn't as someone put "Army Men 27."

    Maybe there isn't enough room for a massive amount of Indie Developers, but in film, they don't sit around forever either. They shine, then disappear, then shine again in the future. Or they get eaten up and "sell out" or they have a one-hit wonder and disappear.

  19. Uwe Boll's crimes against humanity by Zenikase · · Score: 0

    It doesn't help that that clueless buffoon Uwe Boll is tarnishing the industry's image by churning out one abysmal videogame film adaptation after another. It seems to further drive home the idea to the ignorant that videogames are just as bland and soulless as your average Hollywood flick.

  20. Just what we need.... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
    'There are still some developers who were involved in games from the bedroom coding days. Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop.'

    Yes, let's make games for the broad-masses ; Just another WWII-themed FPS... or wait, let's make another race-game ripoff...

    Have a look at the stuff made by the several mod-teams around for FPS's : -that- is were innovation (for FPS games) is situated at the moment : Not in the offices of EA (to take an example) where the next WWII-themed game is pumped out ; Closely on the line of consumer-safeness.

    1. Re:Just what we need.... by Pxtl · · Score: 1

      Irony: Red Orchestra, a WWII FPS-themed independant mod, just won US$1000000 in the MSU contest.

    2. Re:Just what we need.... by 88NoSoup4U88 · · Score: 1
      While it is a very polished mod ; I was very disappointed by them winning the contest.

      I think that they should have taken the unoriginal theme/gameplay a bit more into consideration ; then again, in the end they delivered the most polished (yet very unoriginal) mod as opposed to the others.

      I was more thinking of the -innovative- mods , that have been copied by "the industry" : Good examples of the past being TFC and CS.

  21. Don't change the focus of something great... by Dutchmaan · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As soon as you make business your main focus, you fail. What makes these games great was the dedication that went into making them. They were great games because the designers WANTED them to be great. When you add a business man to the mix it goes from what the developer wants to be doing to something he has been instructed to do. The job that was great now becomes a 9 to 5 drudgery and it shows... ask anyone who was does anything creative.. once the work is no longer your own, you pretty much lose the desire to make it great and just count the minutes until you can get home to the projects you really love.

    This business man is just wrong... I've seen it too many times... change the focus to money and you lose the soul of the product.

  22. Does it? by RyoShin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop.

    If you're a company like Electronic Arts, you've already gotten rid of the notion of 'peer approval'- you're now shooting for the 'lowest common denominator', innovation and new ideas be damned. The executives of companies like EA are modern day Scrooge McDucks- they have a vault of money that they regularly swim in, and if a game doesn't do too well because it's just "Hot Girls Drive Cars 2007", well, they're okay moving to the shallow area of the pool for a day or two.

    However, how many things on the Internet are as popular as they are because someone was shooting for the general public? Not that many. Some guys thought something was cool, got together, and put it on the net to share with friends and the common person that stumbles upon it. This is how we got things like Red vs Blue. Did The Brothers Chap ever dream that Homestar runner would garner such a larger crowd?

    I think that many of the smaller companies should stick to the peer group. For one, if you're trying to impress your friends, you'll go all out. You'll think of new things. And, certaintly, you wouldn't make something you hated. The more you like a project, the better the chance that your friends will, too.

    For two, the best kind of advertising anyone can get these days is still word of mouth. I could see that sexy car on TV with the buxom woman standing over it licking her lips and I would just think 'eh'; but if a friend came to me and said "This is one sweet ass car," I would at least give it second thought. In the same way, a group of guys make a game for friends to enjoy; Those friends tell other friends, who in turn tell more friends, and something gets at least a cult following. And everyone knows that cults will pump out a lot more steady cash than the indifferent masses.

    Smaller companies without the cash cushion have one of two options: Make a mediocre copy-cat game that has moderate-everything, and thus will sell to the masses, or make something different, innovative, that was just an idea among your peet group. The first will likely garner enough money. The second will either tank or make you rich.

    I'd rather see companies take the risk of trying to make the friends happy. Plus, if they release small, free games for the 'friends', who in turn spread it around, people will come to know the brand and will be interested in the bigger, better games that cost money.

  23. Heard it before by Scorchio · · Score: 1

    Mr Hasson is not too original, either. I remember hearing pretty much the same speech about six years ago. That time, however, I was sat across the table from former Acclaim CEO Greg Fischbach. As history shows, this is not a guaranteed plan for success.

    Some of what he says is true, though. The projects are getting more complex, the teams are getting larger. Both development teams AND management need to look how large scale non-games software development companies tackle scheduling, design, documentation, feature change requests, bug tracking and other aspects. There may be some improvements that can be applied to their own projects. All too often, I've had time scheduled at the beginning of a project for game/tools code design and planning thrown aside in order to hack together a half-baked demo because someone up the chain doesn't want to spend the time reading the game design.

    For the creative side of games development, this needs to be as free from business related restrictions as possible. Coming up with a game design that is well received by your peer group - other games designers/developers and gamers themselves - is key to a good game. However, good is not always successful, and who wants good when we can have success with YetAnotherSportsSim 2008, with realistic sweat physics?

    Bah. I need a cup of tea.

  24. Art? by TrippTDF · · Score: 1

    'There are still some developers who were involved in games from the bedroom coding days. Some of them are still making games for peer group approval - that has to stop.

    Enter the independant developer - liken him to the independant movie maker. He's not as big budget, might not have all the glam that comes with a big budget production, but if he executes his product well, it's going to be a lot better than anything the big boys pump out.

    I've thouht for a few years now that video games were going to become a respected art form one day- and I think this is getting us one step closer.

  25. You know who has to stop? by Brainboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft, Sony, and Nintendo. Stop producing more, and more expansive to develop for consoles. Actually that's not truly fair. They are, at least partially, hardware companies.

    What actually needs to stop is developers and publishers getting a hard on everytime a new console comes out and jumping on the bandwagon. It takes a couple of years to get used to developing to a new platform. It's just the nature of the beast. Developers are adapting to the new hardware, seeing what they can do. Little innovation takes place in this phase, because developers are already try something new, the hardware, the graphics. Once that has been figured out, developers can (though unfortunately they don't always) then push other boundaries such as new and different gameplay. That's why a majority of what innovative games there are happen 3+ years after a console has been released.

    The problem is now, a next-gen console gets released after 4 years, roughly. Like sheep, developers follow the hardware companies to the new console, instead of sticking to a stable, easier to develop platform. Where they can continue to push technical, but even more importantly creative boundaries.

    What developers need to do, as a bloc, is say 'No' to the new consoles. 'We're not ready to change yet' And the big developers and publishers need to realize this to. They have more clout and actually make the hardware companies change what they are doing. There needs to be wake up call in the industry. Yes, its partially the developers fault for the lack of innovation, and publishers also share the guilt, but it's hard for developers to explore the field of possibilities when the hardware companies keep pulling them forward.

    --
    Just a guy with an opinion
    1. Re:You know who has to stop? by SetupWeasel · · Score: 1

      To be fair, it is Nintendo that has allowed companies to step back to the SNES days with the GBA.

  26. What about Gladiator? by Don+Giannullo · · Score: 1

    When I think of the epic movies that are coming out these days, I more think of the success of Gladiator and the subsequent failures of Alexander, Troy, etc... I always thought LOTR didn't compare to these movies as much because it was the adaptation of one of the most popular fictional series, not just an epic movie where the viewers were going to embrace the characters and the stories for the first time.

    1. Re:What about Gladiator? by bubblewrapgrl · · Score: 1

      And Gladiator's success can be traced to Braveheart, which, IMO, spawned this whole series of epic movies. Notice how they all have a speech by the person commanding the army right before the big battle like in Braveheart? It's getting tired and that's why movies like Alexander and Troy are failing.

      The same thing is going to happen to the video game industry. Honestly, I can't tell the difference between the WWII games out right now as they all look the same. Why buy a game that looks/feels almost identical to a game that you've already played? It seems silly to me.

  27. A businessman at Namco.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    ..almost kept Katamari Damacy from being released in the US since "it would likely underperform".

    1. Re:A businessman at Namco.. by FozzieCDN · · Score: 1

      The Sims is another fine example. EA thought it was a dumb idea and wouldnt guarentee the million unit EA wants its games to do. They only let it happen to shut up Maxis and bring them in line. Obviously we know how this story ends, but its still amazing that these same companies who want the next big thing wont take the risks in order to make it happen.

  28. Informal Poll by Mitaphane · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought we already were. New creative games are becoming far and few between. It's sad but soon enough the "mainstream" game industry will be the same as Hollywood cranking out the same crap over and over again. Once and awhile there will be something new, but for the most part anything genuinely new will be from (or at least I hope) small independent game companies showing their thing at indie-game festivals.

    I was just curious because I recently noticed how bad it's gotten so I did a poll of my games(the number of non-franchise/sequel games vs. total number of games for the last-gen systems compared with the current gen systems):

    (Last-gen PS): 21/28
    (This-gen PS2): 5/18
    Right now I don't see that number getting any better. Any one else care to share some numbers?

    I know video games being sequelized to the point of oblivion has been around for a while(I'm looking at you CAPCOM). But this year has seemed worse than most others: Metroid Prime 2, GTA: SA, HL2, DOOM 3, Halo 2, Tekken 5, Silent Hill 4, and I'm sure could go on if I wanted to. At least one good thing that sets video games apart from Hollywood sequels is that the bad sequels are the exception istead of the rule. Putting that aside, I am starting to feel tired of playing the same games over and over again.

    --
    -Shawn "If the Name Don't Rhyme It Ain't Mine" Conn
    1. Re:Informal Poll by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Note the difference between franchised and non-innovative. Franchised means using old characters, which does not necessarily mean old gameplay (see Metroid Prime, for example) and not franchised does not necessarily mean new gameplay (LOTS of games come to mind).

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    2. Re:Informal Poll by justchris · · Score: 1

      I'm in total agreement on this. Yes, Capcom is the absolute bigggest offender in the sequel area (No, seriously, MegaMan X8? You're kidding me, right?) But with the same old MegaMan franchise they've managed to produce MegaMan Battle Network (great fun, except they're starting to run the idea into the ground like everything else) and MegaManX Command Mission, one of the most fun console RPGs I've played all year (which, when I think about it, is a very, very sad thing).

      --
      just some guy
  29. Y'all are looking at this from the wrong side... by lumpenprole · · Score: 1

    You're assuming that the aforementioned businessman wants to make great games and is deeply deluded about how they are made.

    On the contrary, he wants to pump out craptastic rewrites of crap with shiny new licensed properties associated to create 'synergy' and 'vertical integration' and recieve unreasonable piles of 'money' for his 'marketing savvy.'

    If games are still being made by people trying to push the envelope that's going to mess up his marketing plan, isn't it? Bad executive! No yacht for you!

    --
    Disclaimer: MINAA (Mummy! I'm Not An Animal!)
  30. The digital imprimatur by tepples · · Score: 1

    Let the budget developers produce games that stand out

    How can a budget developer new to the field, with PC based playable demo of the game in hand, convince licensed publishers to even enter negotiations?

  31. Hasn't it been a business for decades? by DingerX · · Score: 1

    Uh, no offense guys, but I clearly remember dealing with video game companies fifteen years ago, and for the most part, developers ran them like businesses, with clear producer-programmer-art-sound relationships, timelines, deadlines and, yes, even offices. And no surprise, most games out there are indeed "canned" products with low risk, guaranteed sales, but hardly blockbusters.

    Yes, the nature of the beast is that there will always be "bedroom programmers doing stuff for peer approval", just as there will always be people writing crappy autobiographical fiction. Most of that won't sell. But come on, how many developers build stuff for peer approval on consoles? Maybe I'm in an alternate universe, but slapping something on a PC is bound to be better received among peers than a bleedin' Xbox.

    In any case, even the most creative developers need to adhere to schedules and coordinate among the team. Perhaps the point of TFA is just that: with increase in the technical specs of consoles comes an increase in development expenses, and hence staff. The more people that have to work on the same project, the more formal the interaction has to be. That doesn't mean you can't have "creative vision". It does mean that you can't have the art guys sitting around doing nothing until two weeks before ship date.

  32. Re:More Business nonsense written by MBAs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To write-to-meaningless-spec so that the MBA hardly has to do anything-- that's bad for the MBA. Any good MBA will want some challenge because if the company goes under today, he might be selling BVDs tomorrow and will need challenging practice. Bad MBAs can't understand that.

    But the very best MBAs can write crap articles
    that make their peers laugh so hard they snort milk out their noses
    and still manage to sell them
    to idiotic trade rags
    that wide-eyed slashdotters
    suck up to fuel their complete and never-ending righteous indignation :)