Slashdot Mirror
Are Game Publishers a Necessary Evil, Or Just Necessary?
An editorial at GameSetWatch examines whether game publishers really deserve all the flak they get from gamers and developers alike. While some questionable decisions can certainly be laid at their feet, they're also responsible for making a lot of good game projects happen. Quoting:
"The trouble comes when the money and the creativity appear to be at odds. ... Developers and publishers often have a curious relationship. The best analogy I can think of is that of parent and child. The publisher or parent thinks it knows best, because it's been there before (shipped more games), and because 'it's my money, so you'll live by my rules.' The developer — or child — is rebellious, and thinks it has all the answers. In many ways, it does know more than the parent, and is closer to what's innovative, but maybe hasn't figured out how to hone that energy yet."
In a way, you may or may not need a publisher depending on what you're developing. A lot of the generic titles that the "industry" keeps pumping out require a publisher for marketing such a mediocre game. But then you get the unconventional games whose development is actually hampered by having a publisher breathe down your neck and make games easier for the general public.
Useful but not necessary. Their alignment would appear to be chaotic/neutral. Rolling aggainst DEX for an FP...
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Films, books, music and games all have publishers that push for them to complete for deadlines, yet I've never heard of an artist (painter, sculpter, whatever) pushed for a deadline due to their sponsors money issues, Certainly for public displays marking an event, but they're generally given generous amounts of time in the first place prior to starting.
Maybe someone will burst my bubble and reveal that all artists are pushed by publishers, it's just that we never hear about it, but if not, what is so different about a painting or sculpture as a labour of love than a game or film as the same?
It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
The analogy is completely wrong and misused.
For starters, where's the car?
Just Evil.
Book publishers edit, ship, manage the printing of, and distribute books. They also balance the riskiness of publishing each individual book across their portfolio of books. In the same way, movie studios are good at financing and distribution, but a big part of what they do is invest in multiple pictures, so that even if one movie bombs there are always others.
Something -- regardless of what it's called -- has to be able to hold a portfolio of games. To make informed investments, that entity is probably going to have to understand the industry. That knowledge is likely to be valuable and applicable high-level marketing and strategy decisions, and *rightly or wrongly* the investment will only be made if that knowledge can be applied, or if the investor has some power of the developers.
Workers in other very capital-intensive creative industries -- film and television, for example -- tend to be stratified into two economic classes. People in the upper classes eventually get money and are then able to call the shots. There's no reason why the same thing can't happen in gaming. But money will, for the most part, determine who has the power.
...sometimes a good thing and sometimes a bad thing. Publishers can obtain and manage capital, and if they deal fairly and wisely with the devs they fund it's a good thing.
If, on the other hand, we have something like Activision/Kotick, well, that's pretty indefensible.
A publishing house that has degenerated to the point where it cares exclusively for ensuring its own well-being is an evil one. There has to be a symbiotic relationship, not a lethal parasitic one.
Publishers can do good and bad, and have done both. Likewise developers can do well one their own, or poorly. Overall I'd say publishers are useful.
One of the biggest things they do is provide resources to get games developed that otherwise might not be able to be made. If you are a small games studio, you probably don't have the money to work on a large scale title for a couple years with no money coming in, and additionally buy other things you may need (like if you need to hire an outside composer, because you don't have one). Well, a publisher can provide that. You sell them your idea, they pony up the money for you to make it a reality.
Another useful thing they do is setting deadlines. If they are stupid about it sure it can be a problem, but when it gets down to it this needs to be done. You can't work on a game forever. Technology changes, you have to get it out in a reasonable timeline. While developers might get all wrapped up in their project and just want it to go on forever, publishers can be more objective and set goals. A game that isn't everything you want, but it fun and actually on the market is much better than a "perfect" game that never exists.
Also even if a game studio totally develops a game in house, self funded and everything, they may choose to sell it to a publisher. Reason is that when a game is released there is still stuff to be done. It has to be marketed, it has to be distributed, etc. A game studio doesn't always have the staff/resources for that, so they hand it off to someone else.
An example of a situation where a publisher was really needed was Duke Nukem Forever. While it technically had a publisher (Take Two), they weren't in the typical arrangement of funding it. As such 3D Realms could basically do what they pleased, they were footing the bill. What happened was a decade of unfocused running around and now a canceled game because they ran out of money.
Now an example where a game was fine without a publisher would be Galactic Civilizations 2. Stardock decided that since they'd been screwed over by a publisher on GC1, they'd just self publish. The game came out in a reasonable amount of time, with a low budget, and sold well on account of being a rocking title.
Overall, publishers are probalby useful. In part just because it creates something of a division between the creative and business sides of a game. You'll notice that even large integrated game houses often function in the developer/publisher setting. EA owns a lot of game companies, and if they wanted to they could simply make it all "EA". They would be the developers, publishers, and so on. However they don't seem to do that. They have separate internal game studios, with their own headquarters and so on that develop the game, and the EA publishes it. Even their EA label stuff is that way. EA Sports is a subsidiary in Vancouver (with it's own CEO and so on), whereas EA itself is in Redwood.
My guess is they do it that way because it works better. The development subsidiaries are just "developers" and just worry about making the game. EA itself then worries about funding, marketing, and so on.
I am a game designer, and I don't see any point at all to game "publishers". Everybody can rent a server for a couple of dollars, and offer his game there. People can pay with paypal. It's also really easy to offer other payment options (e.g. with web shops). Then you can pay a marketing company to do advertisements for you. Put videos on YouTube, make a nice game site, maybe some local real-world ads. And a ton of viral marketing.
What more do you need nowadays?
Sure, you can always also put it in web shops, like Amazon, eBay, Steam, etc. But only as a second thought, because it has a big price attached to it most of the time, and you have to check its profitability first.
That's why I never ever go to actual game "publishers". With them, you are very unlikely to be profitable at all. Because they take giant profit margins of the actual retail price. And on top of that complete insult, they also want and assume all kinds of rights, and may actually damage your business. (e.g. Don't be surprised it they loudly think about suing you for still selling the game yourself on other channels!!)
So I call the title of TFA "game publisher FUD". Plain and simple.
If you so much as think about contacting a game publisher, you already have done your first error. Don't make the second one.
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
uhuh. dude you have no fucking idea. sure for a website taking a few 100 meg a day from a few visitors. it gets a hell of a lot more complex when your content is pumping gigs an hour. not only that who is going to fund your team of developers?
If you mod me down, I will become more powerful than you can imagine....
Yeah. The only other things a publisher can do is get shelf space in high street stores, advertising space in computer magazines, mentions in the mainstream press, show at E3 and fund development for a year, as well as hire professional web designers who know about promotion and page layout to sort out the website.
The problem is the large publishers like EA and Activision and Atari (many of which also have in-house development shops) and the fact that said large publishers wont publish anything thats in any way new or different.
What the games industry needs is publishers that are similar to what Fox Searchlight and similar studios are to the movie industry (i.e. someone willing to do smaller indy games).
And we need publishers (and retailers) that realize that not all games need graphics that push a GeForce 9800GT to its limits, audio that is best heard on a 8.2 channel speaker setup and 5-year development times.
We offer kinds of Newest Style Handbag,Brand Handbag,Fashion Handbags,
Ladies' Leather Handbag,Replica Handbag
Selling leather handbags on Slashdot? Seems like this AC is a perfect example. If he had a publisher, he'd have known that Slashdot isn't the place for him.
This, to me, is where our watered down version of capitalism fails. Now, I'm a capitalist, but I'm not one of these fanatics who call socialism evil. Socialism works if done correctly and capitalism works if done correctly. To admit the biggest failings of both systems, socialist economies tend to be too focused on a limited number of industries which might make it more difficult to withstand tough economic times, while capitalist economies tend to spread too thin among all manner of industry, perhaps creating problems with quality specializations and therefore affecting the overall view of products from those companies.
However, as I said, they both have their place. And they're not mutually exclusive. You can have both in balance or in moderation.
Anyway, pardon me for digressing. Going back to my original point, our version of capitalism in the US is corrupt, plain and simple. And it's not because of over-regulation. Regulation can indeed stifle competition, but it can also encourage it. And this is perpetuated by both major parties. This is a subject where we are firmly entrenched on the Right. There are Democrats who speak out for moderation, but they aren't exactly vehement about it and most of them aren't generally willing to crusade for it.
However - and this is coming from a very unabashed liberal - our "Right" actually fails to achieve or even try to achieve the traditional outlook on economy. The supposed champion of capitalism in this country, the Republican party, has very little interest in promoting true capitalism. On the contrary, they regulate it more than the Democrats do.
Our legislation and tax practices are heavily stacked against the small businessman in favor of the corporations. This is deliberate and our government has every reason to continue this trend, particularly because the poor and the middle class show no interest in challenging it.
Think of this: an entrepreneur might open a small business in a poor area. The owner is local, the employees are local and the business is tailored to the needs of that community. The money made generally stays within that area and if the business is successful, ultimately proves to be a great benefit for the other members of that community. At the same time, it is greatly in the owner's best interest to deal honestly and provide quality service and goods. They simply cannot afford to screw up. And yet, these businesses are the most common targets of the IRS and local agencies like the various health departments. It makes sense for them to. The big businesses not only can hire professional accountants to keep everything kosher, they can keep lawyers on hand to help them cover their butts when the tax laws become inconvenient. The small businessman is prone to mistakes. He or she must do everything themselves unless they have a family member who can figure it out. The health department can find all sorts of reasons to fine a small business. A small business in the food industry can have an industrial sink that's an inch too narrow according to arbitrary city or state guidelines and not only receives a fine, but is given a short amount of time to remedy the situation before the inspector returns and gives them another fine.
But the small businessmen are a feisty bunch. They'll fight through all of this and, with luck and struggle, make it to the point where they can consider making a small profit. The economy of the neighborhood inches up. More potential small businessmen are encouraged to give it a try. The local economy seems on its way to a small renaissance.
And this is what Wal-Mart and McDonald's have been watching and waiting for. Up pops the Megalomart to take advantage of a slightly more affluent community that is still just poor enough to go for the incredible bargains on low quality goods in order to keep making it. The myth that the politicians and pundits have drummed into our head is that these monoliths create more jobs, so the small businesses be
Omnes tuae crepidines sunt nobis sunt. Ascendo tuum!