The Dawn of the
PlayStation 2, and The Struggle for CyberConnect
So what happened?
HM: And it was in the year 2000 that something... happened. There
was a happening. At that time, it was right when the PS2 was looming on the
horizon. There was a presence of this oncoming approach of the PS2 platform. So
I said, "Let's all band together and work on this new hardware platform.
Let's all make games for the PS2."
And it was at that time that mobile games were taking off in Japan -- like
i-appli for the Docomo network -- and it was at that time that the CEO, my
friend, and I had an argument. I had insisted that we work together for the PS2
hardware, but my friend insisted that everybody go their own separate ways, or
separately work toward making video games for the mobile market.
And my response was, "Why are we dividing our strengths when
we need to unify our strengths and bring everybody together under an umbrella?
Why are we dividing this thing that we have? Why are we splitting up into
different groups?" And so we had an argument because of a difference in
opinions.
And so, this is not a story that you hear very often, but the CEO
left the company. My friend. Normally what you could expect for a company of
that size is that if the president just leaves, the company would end up just
disbanding -- that would be what the expected result would be, and in some
senses that is exactly what had happened.
At that time -- the headcount had been about 20, at that point in
time at the company, and there was a discussion between everybody. There were a
couple of options. One option was: OK everybody, let's go out and try working
for a video game company; each go our own separate ways and we'll all try to
find jobs within the game industry. You work for this company, I work for that
company; we'll all go our separate ways.
Or, the other option would be: let's start over. Let's start over,
but please let me do the job of a president. Let's get rid of this whole
democratic method of doing things, where everybody gets a vote. And up until
that point, all 10 of the people that had created the company each pitched in
an equal amount of start-up money in order to found the company.
I had appealed to all of the other members that were remaining and
said, "I will buy out your shares in the company and unify the shares into
one share, and I will have total ownership of the company. But at the same
time, I will take all the responsibility for what happens to you and to this
company. But, I have the confidence to succeed, and I will make sure this
company succeeds." And so I presented that to the remaining members of the
people that were working for the company.
And so, all the people remained, except for my friend, the former
CEO, who left. All of them, the 20 people, stayed on board, and it was decided
that they would go forward with my proposed plan.
But we also, in order to move
forward with game development, we were a new company -- but we didn't want to
act like the previous company never existed, either. And so it's for that
reason that we decided to stick a 2 on the end of the company and create the
name CyberConnect2.
I had been wondering about that for a long time.
HM: So the birth of CyberConnect2, as we know it today, started
with the development of .hack for the PlayStation 2. And so my history
within the game industry is as long as my company has existed, so I have been
in the industry for thirteen years; as long as CyberConnect has existed.
In Japan there are about a thousand small-scale companies overall,
and this is true even among small-scale video game development companies in
Japan, but development companies that are even now, to this day, the size of 10
people or so, the mentality of these companies is very similar to the mentality
of CyberConnect, back when it made Tail Concerto and Silent Bomber
-- it's almost the same mentality that they have.
There are only 10, so everybody sits down and says, "Let's do
our best to create a video game that is creatable within the scale of 10
people. And if we do that, then we'll probably be able to come up with
something good, right? And if we do that, then our fans will join us, and
they'll follow us; they'll continue to purchase the games that we make; they'll
be following in our footsteps, and we'll be able to succeed doing that."
So that's the mentality that they have. They say, "Let's make video games
within the limitations of what we can do as 10 individuals." And my
opinion is that that's a mistake.
But in this era there are a lot of companies, particularly now in
America, that are starting up to make games for, like, Xbox Live Arcade, or
such, that sort-of bring back the democratic thing. It's almost like it's a
movement. So do you see a value in that sort of thing, or do you think it's
just not possible?
HM: What I'm talking about, as far as 'mistaken', is that at the
time, there was no such thing as Live Arcade or anything like that, so video
games that were made by one hundred people and video games that were made by 10
people both lined up in the stores for $59.99.
And the reality is that the
consumer doesn't look at the title made by 10 people and say, "Wow! For a
company that has only ten people, this game is pretty good!" That's not
how they vote with their dollars. They vote with their dollars by saying,
"I like to play this game," or, "This game is fun," or,
"This game is made well."
There is now, "Oh, it's pretty good for 10 people."
There is a stone cold reality with the consumer, that it all boils down to,
that you have to compete as a company of 10 with companies that are 100 in
size.
The reality is that the consumer is going to end up buying what they
like, and at the point where the company is making excuses for itself, saying,
"Well, for 10 people, this video game is pretty good..." -- at that
point, the company is making excuses for itself. There is something wrong with
that.
The reality in the consumer market is that people buy what they
want. It's a mistake to approach that market and say, "Well, what can we
make?" You know, what is possible? What can we make? You look at what the
consumer wants, and you say, "OK, I want to make something like that! But,
oh... We don't have enough people. So we can't make it."
That frame of
mind is a mistake. If that's the case, add more people; change the environment
that you're working in enough to accomplish the goal. And so, it is with that
mindset that our company has been evolving forward.
|
"The reality is that the consumer is going to end up buying what they like, and at the point where the company is making excuses for itself, saying, "Well, for 10 people, this video game is pretty good..." -- at that point, the company is making excuses for itself. There is something wrong with that. "
And I'm gonna add, it's not just companies making excuses for that. It's reviewers, and game media in general, and even some "core gamers". There's quite a few downloadable games (that shall not be named) in the last couple of years that would never have gotten the scores they got, if it wasn't for the fact that they were made by 1, 2 or 5 guys instead of a big team.
Kudos to HM for his no-nonsense thinking!
Looking at this from a different angle, we cannot say that something is excellent simply because it is popular and sells well with consumers. McDonald's is popular and sells well, but it certainly is not excellent food (nor is it excellent settings, etc). The pet rock was popular at one time.
In addition, I don't think it's a good idea to simply follow whatever sells because that undermines innovation and creativity. In fact, historically speaking, the people and products that become popular and set trends tend to be the stuff that goes against whatever is popular at any particular time, even if the person or product is controversial when it first appears.
I'm a perfectionist and workaholic so my problem is going home. Not good when the boss phones you and says he's sick of the security company phoning him. "Go home, I don't to have another call from them, okay".
I see work in this environment as a three fold process;
Firstly you need a group (2 or more) that can bounce ideas and get workflow happening.
Two, people dedicated to seeing the production through the grind and making sure that all that needs to be done, gets done.
Thirdly, being flexible in the fact that you can make better use of your time by applying yourself when and where needed. ie. If you have no work, find someone that could use the help and learn something from it while you both get it done.
@ Dave: I agree that you shouldn't follow a subject or product because everyone else is making one. Yet I disagree with the assumption that there are fewer options/avenues today. I'd say there are way more oportunities now than ever before!
Eveyone follows the same patterns until you break those molds, try something new. Hence why I believe there is no such thing as a bad idea because eventually you'll stumble onto one that everyone says, "Now why didn't I think of that?"
Trial and error is the only things not seen enough in the industry and holding things back. Just like hollywood, how many remakes are coming out at the moment? I tend to only go and watch a movie when I can, so rocking up and having only blockbuster hits available is a turn off, just as it is when I look for a new game.
Everyone tries to tell me what is really good to play and I should join in. Once in a while someone asks me what I'm playing and it's nice to see from time to time someone come back with. I would never have guessed that was a fun game, I usually don't play that type of game. I just grin sheepishly back.
Secondly, Japan is all about bureaucracy and paperwork. It would be really hard to do the endless meetings if you can't read/write/speak Japanese. If you are perceived as a hotshot, you might get to live "outside the law", but the problem is that then it might be hard for you to effect anything meaningfully because you're not part of the in-group. Office politics are pretty brutal in Japan.