 |
|
|
| |
Arkane's Colantonio: Publisher Consolidation Makes Signing Big Games 'Very, Very Hard'
by Staff [PC, Console/PC]
|
|
| |
|
December 10, 2009
|
| |
Arkane's founder Raphael Colantonio has told Gamasutra that, despite a major deal for their next game, a major publisher market with "10 or 15 possible [choices]" is "very, very hard".
Colantonio was talking as part of an in-depth profile of the Lyon, France and Austin, Texas-based studio, which created Arx Fatalis and Dark Messiah Of Might & Magic, and is currently one of four developers working on 2K Marin's BioShock 2.
The independent developer has a major "first-person immersive game with depth" signed with a retail publisher, however, and Arkane's CEO noted of the unannounced title: "We've been lucky to find a publisher that supports us and understands this kind of game and is supportive of them."
But it wasn't always that straightforward. "If I knew how hard it was going to be," says Colantonio, "I would probably not have done it. That's a common saying, and it applies to us too.
"The industry as a whole is [even] harder to get into now," says Colantonio. "It would be hard today to just come up as four people with no experience and open a company and start contacting some guys you like and hope it will work out. But somehow that's what happened to us 10 years ago.
"The hardest part is the reality and brutality of the business. The way the business is set up. We're not in an industry where one guy decides. When you meet now with the publishers, you don't really know who makes decisions. Is it the stockholder? Is it the marketing guy? Who is it? That makes it very, very, very difficult. There are probably other activities where sales are straightforward.
"We only have 10 or 15 possible clients, if you think about it. Because maybe there are 50 publishers in the world, or something of that magnitude. But the ones that are targeted for us, the ones that can publish the kind of game that we like to do, the kind of budget that we are needing, there are maybe not even 15. Maybe 10. So imagine an industry where all you have is 10 clients. And for some reason they right now do not need what you're doing.
"And then, when you try to talk to them, you don't really know inside the organization who decides. And it takes forever to decide. It might take six months. Or a year. And then the guy you've been talking to goes to another publisher. So it's not the same guy anymore and you have to start again from scratch."
The Arkane head concluded: "This business is really, really hard. And we've tried different options like working with agents. The truth is, it's just the way the business is set up.
"It's set up with a lot of people that are paid not to take any risk -- because it would go against their career. So it's easier to say no to something than say yes to something that might not turn out good. So you have to break through doors to have access to the right people."
The full interview with Arkane's Colantonio is now available on Gamasutra, with lots more detail on previous projects like canceled title The Crossing, as well as hopes for the future.
|
| |
|
|
The issue described here is one I have seen first-hand; the only real proof of a game comes from making and releasing it. A good prototype of proof of concept will show what it is, but can never show how people will react. You can focus-test to get a vague idea of public opinion, but even this is like trying to work out the composition of a beach by analysing one rock. By the time you have focus-testing and prototypes, you have probably expended a lot of money and called in half a dozen favours to get the design looked at.
The alternative, which is no substitute and is risky, seems to be getting capital investment funds to back your development and then showing your finished game to publishers in hopes that maybe the finished product might get a bite when the prototype didn't.
The fact that this is Arkane having these issues should tell you volumes; even a strong developer with a strong background and a proven calibre is having issues.
I do think this is a current trend though, linked with the economic conditions. It is hard for a publisher to get capital to invest, so they are hedging their bets and being very careful with the money they can get. With any luck, the global economy will pick up and maybe the banks and venture-capitalists will be willing to take more risks. Time will tell...
IMO, if you are ready to pledge your house for the product you believe in, the product will be successful no matter what..
The problem is that most of us are not ready for that..
There's this television show here in Canada where people pitch their ideas in front of a panel of potential investors. I'm not sure how often it occurs, but the two times I've seen it there was at least one wanna-be entrepreneur that invested his house, his savings and his kid's college plans in a really, really bad idea that was already way behind the curve. I'm willing to bet that for every success story there are an equivalent amount of dramatic failures you never hear about.
His point about the whole process getting harder because develoeprs do not know the real decision maker is very true. Rarely do biz dev people and producers have the sole approval over which games get greenlight and funded. Finance needs to approve the P&L, Marketing has to focus test the concept, Sales has to run their sales models, Legal has to clear any problematic licenses and content, etc. And at the end of the day even a good game can be left out in the cold for a franchise with lower perceived risk and higher market awareness.
But I do believe, that although easy to succumb to the doom and gloom of the pundits, developers are inherently more adaptable than the publishers. If there is a benefit to be found in this economic downturn it is that developers can move quicker to new business models than the traditional publishers that are constrained by the business model they perfected during the PS2 era.
If you're fortunate enough to get listed on a big site you're buried way back in the bottom, hidden light years beyond the Dragon Ages, Assassin's Creeds and Modern Warfares. Smaller sites fit into two categories: the promotional ones who either have wannabebigsite-itus and and mostly ignore you while focusing on trying to get big game attention, and the distribution ones who only want smaller games.
Adaptability, as Kevin says, is our one true benefit. Thank goodness for that. We can continuously dig into our personal creative resources and pump out whatever we believe to benefit the perception of our vision.
In terms of overall difficulty, which is harder: making the complete game, or getting the game noticed sufficiently to earn back its costs?
Thanks for the opportunity to answer this question out loud. :)
First of all, they(mentors, advisors, industry veterans) told us what we wanted to do(complete a graphically rich, deep gameplay, 3D game using our own IP) was impossible. Well, we bet the farm and did it. Naysayers, be damned.
Then we learned that getting it noticed was 3-4x the work of actually making the game. Not only did we invest uncountable hours gaining the skills to make the game, we now found ourselves having to learn how to be a publisher and marketer. And just too bad the marketing budget was zero. So, where do we go from there? Find every possible way to take advantage of no-cost promotion(a 24-7 job just like making the game in the first place).
Now and then we find a sweet tidbit on the web about our game and try to capitalize on it by facebooking and tweeting it. IGN called us a 'hidden gem' in their reader reviews section and a player was quoted to say "The game has one of the most insanely strategic combat systems I've ever seen in an RPG".
But try to get a high profile site to review the game? Might as well handcuff me and throw me in a dungeon with a video screen and no remote. As long time gamers we were shocked to be approached for a paid review. If we had known this was the nature of the business, we'd have started a gaming site years ago before starting the game. Then we'd have our review audience in place.
This brings us to talking about demos. First of all, the conversion rate is pretty low. Thought we could deal with that by making lots of noise, but no, it takes more. We then learned our demo sucked. Not because it was bad, but because it catered to the wrong audience(those in indie and dev communities who complained our game was too complex). We tried to fix that with adding in Battle Modes to give the player more up front action. Not good enough. So on to more R&D. What really makes a good demo? We drew on our knowledge of Tomb Raider and Devil May Cry 4, then downloaded the Wet demo for PS3. Took our business meeting by walking around the block and tada! There it was! An advanced demo using basic instructions!
We're almost done. A dynamic demo using more hand painted graphical character portrait screens with simple instructions, brutal ingame cinematics and playable high level, fully equipped, customized characters for short bursts of hardcore action along a linear storymode path. We're hoping this one is the ticket.
One thing that may account for the relatively low visibility of our game is the built in DRM. We've developed a fairly sophisticated DRM as our game relies on streaming content. If the game were hackable it'd be out there like wildfire as was our first more primitive game which drew 1.64 million google refs in the first week of release. We've entertained the idea of releasing something hackable for promotion purposes but haven't followed through.. Ah.. the things one thinks about. Like what are the industry's best kept secrets? ;)
From my experience it is way harder to get through to a publisher and sign a good deal than to make a profitable game! That is ridiculous!
1. Today it is a great business opportunity for developer to become a publisher (as soon as there are not so many publishers ready to publish the game)
2. It is indeed the industry that is becoming more and more complicated. But who ever told it should be easy? Just work harder, or go to another industry, or downshift to Goa.. at least there is a choice..
If one wants to be successful, he should not stand still, but should always find new ways and opportunities. If can't find the solution, maybe try to go to college for second/third education, get a marketing/business diploma, find your investors (that could be just bunch of normal people with some money, not always VCs.. ), build the business, not a 'studio'...
But of course that is not convenient, because it requires some action, some working nights, weekends, holidays etc. Sorry, but what I read here are just complains about how it is hard, but no proposals on how to overcome it.
Given how hard it is to make a complete, polished, fun game, not to mention doing it without access to the relatively deep pockets of a publisher, it's pretty shocking that developers consider it even more difficult to bring that game to the attention of potential purchasers.
If there's a ray of hope for the future, perhaps it's that the Web is still very much an open marketplace for information. A few high-traffic sites today may control which games consumers hear about, but new sites may appear tomorrow to challenge those that aren't satisfying a demand for information about games other than the blockbusters.
Then it becomes a matter of separating the signal from the noise... but at least there'll be more of a signal than seems to be getting through today.
On the other hand, sometimes developers don't need publisher to publish. Do you mind the game could be developed and published in Bulgaria by four persons, for example? Do you mind they could have good profit? i do.