|
Do you think there's a structure that can be put in place? Or do you think that things like you discussed, like tech being idiosyncratic, or game design style being idiosyncratic to developers, is going to be too much of a stumbling block?
I mean, obviously, they have the guilds and stuff in Hollywood. Their whole system is designed to ramp up, ramp down, and to bring people on at the right times, as we all know.
But you don't need a pool of artists at the beginning of a project. You burn through so much money so fast, with nothing to do until you enter into actual production.
BR: I think where we have seen companies try to do that is through outsourcing. So, art is a great example of that. And we really tried this at Flagship. Our intention was to do almost all outsourcing. We were like, "We're going to have like two or three artists. We're going to have a concept guy, an art lead, and a technical artist. And then we're going to outsource everyone else."
We found that there were certain things where, "Okay, we really can't wait for turnaround." You start finding ways that you have to have people more involved, or there's a certain way you want your art done, and you haven't found the right outsourcer the way you want it. "Screw it, let's just... We'll hire our own guys and teach them."
I think that's the way that you would have to make it work, to just say, "Look, here's the core team of guys in my company. These are the creative and the leads on our projects. And then when we ramp up, yes, we're going to go get..." Art is the easier one. Sound and music are easier. Programming, the most difficult, you know. Design, somewhere in between. So, there's always going to be a certain size you're going to have to maintain.
The tricky part is the down-ramping, right? If there was a way where you could -- and I think this is especially vital in the West -- say, "Great. Now we need to be making additional content. Here are all the tools. Here's the engine." Because by that point, things are really in place, right.
 Star Trek Online
If you could have the ability to say, "Here are a couple of my design guys, one of my programmers, a small team of three or four guys. You're going to run this other outsource team because it's going to be far more cost efficient. Here's what I want. Here's the next content thing I want. You guys run that with these other..." You could have the smallest amount of the highest priced resources involved.
I think the challenge is that isn't what ends up happening. You end up taking your whole company and focusing on that product. So, it's hard to roll onto anything new. Again, it's very specifically [like this] in the MMO space. It's hard to roll onto anything new. You're tying up all your best people in things that honestly they shouldn't be tied in.
My lead programmer shouldn't be fixing bugs for a product that's been out for six months. He should be working on what's the next innovation. But sometimes you're just trying to manage costs, so you have the team as small as you can. "I can't free you up to go work on the next cool thing. I honestly need you to fix this stupid bug." Not stupid because it's in the game and it's affecting players, stupid because it's like, "I could have a junior programmer fix this, but we don't have any because we had to cut back."
MMOs are an incredibly difficult creature for anybody. I think that's because of the cost association that's exacerbated in the West. That's why I think they operate better here [in China], they re-use technology, they're not afraid to just go, "Yup, we're going to build like 10 off the same engine," or whatever. Yes, they all look kind of similar, but there are different games. They're not afraid to use good mechanics that work. And they can maintain larger staffs for less investment. I think that's a huge thing.
I think the tech thing is a big thing in the West, too. I think Cryptic was very smart because they have a very good set of tools. They have a very good engine. They had a very good backend. And the idea was, they were like, "This is going to be a platform."
But one of the first comments that came out, when Star Trek Online came out, were people saying like, "Well, it's just Champions re-skinned." I mean, gameplay-wise, not at all! But when you show it, it's like, "Well, yeah, we just kind of used the interface placing." Like there were enough similarities where I sort of understand what that actually meant.
|
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.