|
If you look at this, just look publishers persist and studios close, ultimately. That's how this industry works.
BR: Or studios get bought and become publishers.
Right. No one seems to be able to stick around. No matter how well they're doing for one year, next year they might...
BR: I think the difficulty is that... So, if I was going to make a comparison to film, right, there's a fundamental difference. Companies in film that would equate to independent developers and gaming, there's a difference they do in film.
They work on a movie, they come out with a move, and then they get rid of almost everybody. And they keep that core creative team, which might be five to 10 people. And then they say, "What's the next project?" And then they build up and do that project. They build up and they launch it, because they're still kind of in the box model.
On the gaming side -- and Blizzard is another weird example of this, I think. What gaming companies tend to do is, you don't want to get rid of that talent because they know how to use your engine, they know how to make games the way you want to make games, they become part of your culture. So, even if your game ships and you don't have anything lined up, you’re hesitant to get rid of those people because you're like, "Oh man, he's great. She's fantastic. I don't want to lose those people."
And so you figure out how the hell you're going to pay them. And I think that's another fundamental problem. Obviously, that changes if they all still have work they're doing on the product. But the trick is there's not really funding there. It's not really there.
And the other thing that tends to not happen is they don't cancel online games as readily as they will cancel a TV show. Imagine if they came out and they went like, "Well, you know, the game's been out for three or four months and it's not doing what we wanted, so we're shutting down all the servers." Because of the way they're built up, especially again, in the subscription space, "Whoa, we've got people that have six month subscriptions." Or, "They bought a lifetime sub. Oh my God! They're going to sue us." You know, you start running into these other problems.

So, publishers, a lot of times, may have to bear some brunt of that. But they're bearing the brunt, and it's built into their model of how they're sustaining as a business. Where developers, they're screwed. They close
You know, that's certainly what happened with Flagship. We just could not sustain to keep the doors open. Even at the very end, you got to the point where the board, the five founding members... We were putting our own money back into the company at the end, which as anybody in business will tell you is the stupidest thing to do.
But we felt we were very, very close to a deal to get more funding. So, we paid our final guys' paychecks out of pocket. Like, "Okay, we're going to all try to find some money and pool it together because we really think this is going to happen," and it didn't. Yeah. It's really hard. And it hasn't gotten any easier, right? [laughs] -- which is why some things have got to fundamentally shift.
Do you think that as things move to online, that frees you from publisher deals potentially? If you can go directly the users, would that make it more easy for you guys to manage yourselves?
BR: I don't know. You would like to believe so. Everybody wants to think that they can do the other guy's job better, right? I think the challenge will always be -- whether you've got a publisher you're working with, whether you're self-funding -- is how you make that transition. How do I move between project A and project B? How do I support this other thing, right? I think the biggest challenge in that way isn't the publisher, as much as how do I maintain the development, right? And a lot of that, I think, is through game design.
I think it's one of the reasons the casual market is so sexy right now. You're seeing a lot of people going into that, because it is low-risk. It's much, much shorter timelines. You know, three-month dev cycles. Games cost $75,000, with small teams. And you can crank content really quick. Turnarounds are really fast. You're getting metrics in five minutes. And they are not afraid. Because the games are free, and invariably when they launch, it says "beta," they're not afraid to have it run for six weeks and say, "Okay, that failed. Kill it."
|
MMORPGs are a difficult market to penetrate and the current predominant business models screw over the developers.
Check out this episode of Extra Credits:
http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1906-The-Fu ture-of-MMO
s
Hellgate failed because it was badly conceived from the get go. When roper left everyone was expecting Isometric Action RPG, instead it was a third person pseudo MMO, it was just awful.
Kudos Bill...Best of luck on your next venture!
I really hope Cryptic can make something a little bit more for grownups with the Neverwinter title.
About the negatice criticism you will always get that...whatever you do. You never get good criticism...always bad. Doesn't matter if you're selling cookies, driving a bus or checking parking meters. (Ok...maybe the cookies was a bad example..lol.)
The thing is that kids today have very bad or no upbringing at all and they are very competitive in everything they do. They will instantly...even before a game has been released make a list of why your game sucks and why game B is so much better.
Maybe this could be the trouble, people waited too much from him and let's admit that he is capable of lots more, just give him a break to get used to work outside AB.
Comparing making a video game to a movie is kind of unfair. Making a movie and a game are totally different things (besides the script for the most part). I would think writing a script for a movie might be harder than a video game, you need much more dialog. Other than that I think making a game would be harder. The time to program the engine (Unless you use a pre-made one), the time it takes to code it.
Its harder to just throw away a game because it takes so long to make. NCsoft has a thing about throwing away games and it must kill the people who work on them. They could easily do what was done with Champions, D&D and other games, just sell the game to another publisher and let the game have a chance as F2P. If a movie is done and doesn't do well in the theater, or if the producer thinks it won't do well they can just send it to video and/or Netflix or other on demand service and people can and will watch it no matter how bad it is. Sure they shelve movies before or int he middle of being made, not sure how often that happens.
Did you not play mass effect 2 Robert? Or GTA4, or Red dead redemption? Games have a tonne of dialog now-a-days. Not all of them to be sure but games with lots of NPC's who the team wants to give voices to adds up really quickly.
ames_genres_and_other_media_formats.php. Perhaps Roper should try to get a publishing deal from HBO?
Until competent MMO middle ware comes about, i don't think that model will work well for MMOs, but its only a matter of time until someone releases a WOW level middleware solution..
Bleh. If you want to know why MMOs don't work any more, you don't have to look any farther than that.
From an hardcore gamer standpoint, it really seems like 90% of MMOs since WoW (2005) wanted to follow WoW footsteps, either financially or with game mechanics.
There *is* demand for that kind of game. EQ rose to massive success and WoW overtook it fivefold based on that tight reward loop. Maybe no one can do it at that scale anymore because of WoW's gravity, but claiming people don't want it is clearly wrong.
There are certainly a lot of game players that do not like the WoW-style reward loop. It's not at all obvious yet what they do like, and if it can be made into an MMO.
nowadays. This is what kills videogame in general.
And this is why 8-bit era was so glorious : it was new, free from any
model re-use.
There should be a number 1 rule in every game studio :
"Any time you start a new game development, just burn all your game
mechanism models".
To a broader approach, I would say that this "model discount syndrome", as mister Roper mentionned it, is the cynical, logical result of our actual society : driven by investors and shareholders.
Nobody wants to take risks. Nobody wants to lose that precious penny in some kind of "that could work, but we're not 100% sure". This is pitifully rotting creations, and we all know it.
Nobody wants to "just try and let instinct guide ourselves" anymore. We're all robots, production machines.
This is even what killed a lot of games these recent years : we could feel that the studio wanted to put an original feature in it, like I don't know, a new quest system, a new interaction ... and when you look at the bigger picture, you see those features overwhelmed by mainstream déjà-vus.
Game Industry has become profoundly shy. Gamemaking actors do not have this inner craziness anymore. This furious, innocent desire to plant new flags.
To all developers, game studios, gamedesigners : Just put your guts on the table. Take risks, follow your instinct. Put all those obvious rehashes into trashcan.
Every good gamedesigner is also supposed to be a good gamer. And a good gamer knows what's original, what's saturated, and what's addictive.
P.S : thank you very much for this article, very instructive.
Smaller indie studios are where innovation at all costs still works - but nobody is going to trust them with a hundred million dollar budget.