Slashdot Mirror
Game Corporations Rule, Independent Studios Drool
hapwned writes "In his third segment for The Escapist, Warren Spector reviews what the ambitious, creative, and talented (but poor) don't want to hear: 'Until and unless the business model changes, I see only one possible outcome: A business that's already heading in a rich-get-richer direction will see the trend accelerated and the situation exacerbated. Those who can afford to compete at the triple-A, movie-budget level will; those who can't will be driven out of business entirely or driven to different parts of the business - boutique online games, cell phone games, casual puzzle games...'"
$2.50 for two horse wallpapers.
That or else they're StarDock and everyone will buy their games anyway because they respect their customers and they know that gameplay is more important than graphics.
There are new (and emerging) buisness models that are just being brought to the mass market level. With Garage Games' Torque engines you can develop a pretty decent independent game and can market it through XBox live; Nintendo has implied (although I'm not sure it has been announced) that the virtual consoles (like the NES, SNES and N64) will be open to new development and a person could make a really amazing 2D game on the N64 for not too much money.
On a side note, I'm really interested in seeing what Nintendo does; of all of the largest game publishers Nintendo seems to be the only one that is willing to openly say that development cost are getting out of control; and they want people to be able to develop for the Revolution without concern for budget. I'm really curious to see if they can make it possible for a team of 4-8 people (who are working for 6-12 months on a game) to produce and release a game [essentially the team size and time frame of most SNES games].
Isn't that part of the reason Nintendo is going after the casual gamer crowd with the Revolution?
The Kerr Divine: My wife's battle with a mysterious illness.
Ya know, we were all confused about Nintendo's direction for a while, but I think it's becoming more clear that they are realizing the growing trends in gaming, and are trying their best to curb this crap, and focus on fun games again. Hopefully they will create a haven for these floundering baby game companies who have nowhere else to show off their cool new thing, and give them enough of a chance to show off what they can accomplish in a game, and hopefully get their shoe in the door for the bigger and better.
It's just going to be like the movie industry, where Nintendo will host the Sundance game festival.
Face it. If you're not a HUGE corp with a lot of manpower to put behind your project, you won't write the next big thing in shooters. There are manyears in the 2 to 3 digit range behind those games. Nothing you can crank out with "hobbyist" levels. Forget writing anything in shooters or RPGs if you're not Blizzard, EA or at a similar level. You won't even be noticed.
But there are game genres that don't get overcrowded. http://www.galciv2.com/ is a great example of a great game that doesn't require a lot of explosions and pretty graphics (even though they're not bad either, by far not!). But the game itself is great! Lots of choices, lots of knobs and tweaks to fiddle with, lots of freedom for the player to create, play and plan. Lots of different strategies that can all lead to success.
That's where "smaller" companies have a chance. Not trying to compete with the big studios, but trying something new and improved. We won't see any invention or development from EA anytime soon. There's a reason why they print the year on some of their products, so you can at least see that there IS a difference in the different versions of the game.
The pet example in this context is usually Tetris, a game that even for its time had mediocre if not laughable graphics, and STILL it's one of the most successful game ideas ever. Tetris didn't get popular because of flashy graphics or cool effects. It was, is and will be a timeless classic for a gameplay that allows the player a lot of freedom and challenges him not only with his ability to react but also with his ability to understand different patterns and plan ahead.
This is where our chance is. Not in the vain attempt to create the better CounterStrike.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I was thinking that exact same thing myself. StarDock has been around for quite some time. They were just about the only company back in the OS/2 days that recognized that there was a market for OS/2 games, and the games that they made were *good*. The OS/2 community responded by helping to keep StarDock afloat through purchases of what was clearly niche software products.
Along the same lines, StarDock's attitude that they should be grateful to the customer and therefore continue to produce games and company policies that keep people coming back also help to keep them afloat. Hell, I plan on buying Galactic Civilizations II just because StarDock has refused to use on-disc copy protection, even though I don't really care for that particular genre!
This is in stark contrast to the mega-game conglomerates like EA and Ubi who treat the customer as though they are potential criminals (and therefore deserve invasive copy protection) who should be grateful that they are being given the privilege of purchasing the game (and therefore expect the customer to tolerate a bug-ridden version while the company works on patches). Bullshit!
Since when does any company need to compete against the big-boys or die? From what I understand, Darwinia is exceptionally popular and that company doesn't come close to EA or UbiSoft. What about Zuma and other popular games? I still think back to Apogee and Id, both of which were independents that profited through a successful shareware model.
The notion that you have to compete with the big boys and have big-budget games in order to survive is complete and utter bullshit. Find your niche, make great games, get great word-of-mouth, and treat your customers with respect. You'll make it in the gaming world. You might not be as big as EA or Ubi, but that's not necessarily a bad thing either.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
SO WHAT?! Since when did popular games require ZOMG GRAPHICS to be either good ro popular and why in hell do people like you continue to propagate that myth? Darwinia is by no means cutting edge graphics, neither are the thousands of title that companies like PopCap sell successfully. I've played and enjoyed Zuma, Bejewelled, and lots of other games of that nature. They are hardly games that anyone would consider to have cutting-edge graphics, but they're FUN and I enjoy playing them.
There are also plenty of talented voice actors out there who would give their vocal talents just for the fun of doing it. I think that most gamers really don't give a rat's rear end about who does voice acting as long as it's done WELL. Hell, I can do lots of accurate, European accents and have been told by many people that I should get into voice acting. I'd gladly lend my voice to a local independent gaming company (if there was one near me) just to say that I did it! Half-Life 2 was no better because it used the voice talents of people like Robet Guillaume (sp?) and Louis Gosset, Jr. It would not have been any worse if unknown but talented voice actors were used instead.
The attitude that successfull games require ZOMG GRAPHICS and well-known voice talent and that having neither is detrimental is the real "handicap" that independent game companies have to overcome. What's disgusting about it is that the real "handicap" is not the company's action but the ignorant perception of those who externally place those "handicaps" on the gaming companies.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.