Slashdot Mirror
Game Developers Becoming Similar To Hollywood Studios?
CNet is running an article that looks at the growing parallels between the major movie studios and some of the most successful game publishers, which have gradually turned into the juggernauts of the industry as they've absorbed a variety of smaller developers in recent years. "If we consider Hollywood — the model to which the video game industry is always compared — it doesn't take long before we realize that it's dominated by a handful of studios that effectively control a large percentage of the industry, while the independent studios are left trying to defy the percentages and get their innovative and artistic films to the masses. Since most fail, it's the big studios that enjoy profits as the independents try to find some way to stay alive." Gamasutra has a related piece suggesting the opposite trend: "Smaller, less expensive games made by smaller, more agile teams seem like a very logical step, now that the industry structure is better able to support it, with no less than three venues on which to distribute content as a small team. These are downloadable console, direct to consumer PC downloads via Steam-like services, portals, or direct sale, and iPhone and potentially DSi downloads."
You can't necessarily make a good movie with a handful of guys and some talent. There are very real expenses involved, including paying or compensating actors.
A game? A guy can sit down and code a game on weekends by himself. Look at Flash games: many of them are more complex than games of the NES era and worlds of fun.
Look at mods like Eternal Silence, Fortress Forever, Dystopia, Insurgency... these are teams of a handful of people (10-50) working on their free time and they put out a quality product.
Random Thoughts From A Diseased Mind (Not For Dummies)
Funny how non-gamers seem to run to Hollywood as a comparison for everything.
Honestly, games have been quite varied from the start, many producers and many distributors. The whole "hollywoodisation" of gaming has come in recent years with massive corporate entities like EA, Ubisoft, Rockstar, and the like taking over smaller studios to feed their own agendas.
Yes the game industry is moving toward a Hollywood model, but it's definitely not the one that it's 'always compared'.
the same as any other big business.
Automotive started with 100's of small companies 1890-1910. Soon there was a handful. Then just 'Three', then a global handful. Soon to be a few again.
Game development takes a lot of resources over an extended time to produce content. Somewhere that cash has to be available to fund those resources.
So most games will be produced by large production houses; who will be in constant consolidation.
(On the star-comment, look at the Lara Croft series.. reversed direction of star power.)
But it doesn't need to be this way. The internet, with open source routines, can ruin the consolidation movement. If a lot of small developers re-use open code for most of the heavy lifting (essentially trading or bartering work) then small developers can compete and expand. Look at the music industry too, don't need record labels to publish.
A little cash and a lot of passion and organization has created success with Ubuntu - that has major OEM's pre-installing on hardware now. A different model that seems to be working.
and if Valve ever goes out of business, they have already developed and tested a "kill switch" patch for the client, to remove all activation requirements.
This is an oft-repeated statement with little proof behind it, but lets assume it is true
What I wonder is: will Valve actually be allowed to do this? Sure, they can free their own products (Half Life, etc), but to "unprotect" games from other publishers that are hosted on Steam seems of dubious legality. I have a hard time imagining EA has agreed to such a thing.
Of course, whether a company that is going under will have the resources (or the rights) to free up its own IP is also a major question.
And how would you take it elsewhere? Go through the whole download again? Waste DVDs burning it? With physical media it's easy, just grab it and go.
The same applies to getting a new machine, although I suppose you could copy the files across a local network. What happens if the old machine died? You have to download all of your games all over again. With physical media you can easily install at your leisure.
What if you don't want the game any more and want to sell it? You can't. Again, with physical media this problem doesn't exist.
IIRC, offline mode is only good for a limited amount of time (ie. 30 days). If you don't connect to Steam after that time period, you lose the ability to use offline mode. Also you have to actually be online to activate it (makes a lot of sense, huh?), so if your internet connection goes out or the Steam servers are unreachable, you're SOL. Say goodbye to your games.
Still, people losing their account does happen and people can get locked out at the whim of a single company or employee of the company for any reason, real or bullshit. From their EULA.
13. TERM AND TERMINATION
Either you or Valve has the right to terminate or cancel your Account or a particular Subscription at any time. You understand and agree that the cancellation of your Account or a particular Subscription is your sole right and remedy with respect to any dispute with Valve.
C. Termination by Valve.
1. In the case of a recurring payment Subscription (e.g., a monthly subscription), in the event that Valve terminates or cancels your Account or a particular Subscription for convenience, Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide a prorated refund of any prepaid Subscription fees paid to Valve.
2. In the case of a one-time purchase of a product license (e.g., purchase of a single game) from Valve, Valve may choose to terminate or cancel your Subscription in its entirety or may terminate or cancel only a portion of the Subscription (e.g., access to the software via Steam) and Valve may, but is not obligated to, provide access (for a limited period of time) to the download of a stand-alone version of the software and content associated with such one-time purchase.
3. In the case of a free Subscription, Valve may choose to terminate or amend the terms of the Subscription as provided in the "Amendments to this Agreement" section above.
And how about their region locking? I travel a lot and have sometimes bought games while in other countries. Or what about people who move, do they suddenly lose their entire library of Steam games?
I can't trust a company on just their word that they will unlock games if they go out of business or stop the service. If they go out of business, what incentive do they have to provide anything? If they stop the service OR go out of business, they may not even be able to provide the ability to unlock games if the specific game developer or publisher doesn't permit them to.
B. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.
NEITHER VALVE, ITS LICENSORS, NOR THEIR AFFILIATES SHALL BE LIABLE IN ANY WAY FOR LOSS OR DAMAGE OF ANY KIND RESULTING FROM THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE STEAM, YOUR ACCOUNT, YOUR SUBSCRIPTIONS AND THE STEAM SOFTWARE INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, LOSS OF GOODWILL, WORK STOPPAGE, COMPUTER FAILURE OR MALFUNCTION, OR ANY AND ALL OTHER COMMERCIAL DAMAGES OR LOSSES. IN NO EVENT WILL VALVE BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, INCIDENTAL, CONSEQUENTIAL, SPECIAL, PUNITIVE, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES, OR ANY OTHER DAMAGES ARISING OUT OF OR IN ANY WAY CONNECTED WITH STEAM, STEAM SOFTWARE, MERCHANDISE THAT YOU ACQUIRE VIA STEAM, ANY INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN CONNECTION THEREWITH, OR THE DELAY OR INABILITY TO USE MERCHANDISE OR ANY INFORMATION, EVEN IN THE EVENT OF FAULT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), STRICT LIABILITY, BREACH OF CONTRACT, OR BREACH OF VALVE'S WARRANTY AND EVEN IF VALVE HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBIL
But of course, a tiny movie budget won't give you the next Star Wars any more then a tiny game budget will give you the next Half Life, that however doesn't mean they can't be good in their own way.
I think a group of talented people could easily take the budget for the original Star Wars (about $13 million) and make a much better movie than any of the last three that George Lucas has put out.
Sure, you wouldn't have monster special effects, but you don't need those to make a good movie.
I listen to music, and I play it, thus I am a musician. Also a music geek.
/.ers, we are aware that each individual is unique and blah blah blah, but we are still going to categorize. It's the way our minds work.
I watch movies. I am NOT a "movie guy" or a "movie afficiando" or a "movie snob."
I work in IT, and thus am a geek. Just browsing the web doesn't make me a geek.
My sister drives a car, but that doesn't make her a gearhead or mechanic. I read car magazines regularly, participate in forums online about cars, and do a bit of work on my own. Thus, I am a gearhead, and she is not.
When I say "gamer", I do not mean just "a person who plays video games." I mean "a person for whom playing video games and participating in the associated subculture is a significant hobby." You know - I play an occasional game, but I am not a gamer. My roommate is a gamer - he subscribes to EGM, reads IGN regularly, and spends hours a day gaming almost every day. He can tell you things like what cool new game is coming out, or what spiffy technology is behind it, or what the cheat codes for GTA4 are off the top of his head.
So, while your polite and well-meaning comment is understood, you're taking it the wrong way. The term gamer isn't used in a derogatory manner, at least that I know of. Human beings categorize things to make them easier to understand. As intelligent (I hope)
If you don't like the term, try and start a new one. However, it's fitting and apt, thus I think you're out of luck. After all, no matter what you do, "fetch" isn't going to happen.
PS - Listing two games I've played in the last 6 years hardly qualifies as a "bunch." And I pick up on things because I'm not an idiot and I have a gamer for a roommate.