[The PA Report] Layoffs, studio closures and the risk of developing 'AAA' games

[Gorb]

I figured this was worth discussion given the recent Relic (and Vigil) layoffs, and more recently still, the closure of the developer of the Prototype games. Let's try and avoid hating on/posting non-constructive one-liners about the games mentioned in the article for the sake of it, okay? We've got other places to battle each other over such topics

Firstly:

Mandatory reading.

In that you won't make much sense of this thread or debate without reading it, barring those of us unlucky to have industry experience

With that out of the way, how much do you agree? I recommend reading the comments, there's some neat stuff in there (and some incredibly subjective rubbish; I'll give an example in a bit). How many of you have industry experience and are willing/able to share your perspective? Does it mesh with what you experience, or have heard others experience?

It's quite a stark/depressive look at the industry as it stands, but it does expose a nice set of numbers with regards to monetary cost (and also manpower estimations) of developing an AAA game - something that I've found sorely lacking when people are debating how much games cost to make. The comments on the article showcase what I consider is ignorance in certain parts - a unified template to draw from when developing a game (a nice idea, but I'd personally consider that impractical to implement unless every studio worked together for the next 5 - 10 years and developed no games in the meantime); various mentions of "just spend less" on the areas of marketing or high end graphics - are these commenters even in touch with the modern market or do they sit at home clutching their hand-signed copy of Tomb Raider I?

Am I being too critical? Probably. It seems some of the commenters are just (as commenters will, I hear you say) using the vague topic of game pricing and costs to go on their own little personal rants. That said, there are more than few discussing where we could go from here (assuming the article is on the ball about the impending future of the industry), which is why I recommend the comments as secondary reading.

So, what say you, peeps?

[Hirmetrium]

I genuinely hate the PA report. Ever since they poured a bucket of bile on the "ME3 Ending" complainers without any critical analysis or thoughtful reflection, I've been completely switched off. They can go screw themselves. The entire blog reads like one mans power-trip of being a media editor (not that I can blame him, I'd be the same). Penny arcade has felt dead as of late, as they are obviously part of the media empire and exist to make money.

I'll read this when I get home, but I question the quality of journalism from that place. If somebody wants to refute I'd be happy to listen.

EDIT: As a sidenote, and the fact I am external from the industry (I look in, not out) I believe the video game industry is a bloated corpse of rotting flesh and maggots. It has a huge pipe in its mouth called "Money" and one coming out of its arse saying "Double money" but the journey along it is enough to wither souls, crush dreams, and ruin lives. It's probably the biggest reason I haven't made the jump to the VG industry (as a lifelong dream). Occasionally a fresh young pretty baby pops out (like Minecraft) before it too becomes the same bloated corpse (even now Mojang is heavy with cash). I also like analogies. The industry is due for a change - the question is, how soon, and by who. Kickstarter was one part of that, and indie success another.

There's a wider story here too. Why is COD, as a terrible rehashed game, successful? Why does it make so much money? where does that money go? what is it that makes game development so much more expensive and studios (and their staff) so expendable? How did 38 studios blow $75mil on one sup-bar game? There's so many articles trying to tackle this, and so few research papers...

[Fixer]

Metric driven games development.

Games designed for making money. Minimum risk, largest demographics, enforced deadlines, sociopathic inhuman management, terrible working conditions.

You have the producers in charge cracking the whip and counterproductively pushing the developers to insane working hours for little pay knowing that they can be easily replaced due to the large number of people still willing to sacrifice to enter the games industry. EA Spouse blog and the Trenches comic give a good idea of life in the sausage factory.

Crunch time is the worst of it. Pushing people past limits, making more mistakes, becoming less productive. All to reach an imposed deadline or became some madman doesn't understand that human beings work best when they have time to rest and that more hours worked per week does not equal more work done. Usually because he himself never has to work these hours or does not care about people other than himself.

That's where AAA falls apart.

[Rivy]

There's much I don't understand about game development. On one hand you have Payday, Hard Reset and E.Y.E. which were made by small teams and turned out great (sure a little more budget could have helped), and then you have Homefront and Battlefield 3 (in terms of single player), which despite being technically great feel boring and uninspired and, in the case of Homefront, bombed.

I don't want to go all artistic and crap, but I do think that what many games lack nowadays is inspiration and enthusiasm. Many games are being made with the corporate mindset of profits and market study and whatnot, and while they might do well, if they don't it means a lot of money has been lost (because of expensive voice actors, state-of-the-art tech, excessive advertising, etc) and people lose their jobs (easiest way to cut expenses, right ?). And on the other hand there's all the indie games being released on Steam that look cheap but are fun as hell and make a profit (because they were cheaper to make in the first place). You can tell the developers love what they made, and not just because it took them 500 hours to program, but because it's "their baby". Enthusiasm right there. Innovation.

I think that the high-risk high-reward AAA market is not the best side of the videogames industry. It's stagnant and it leads to what the PA article says: a few (big) developers making the same game over and over.

[Fixer]

The top down management of video games stifles creativity.

Just look what Bethesda's team managed to do in the week they were given when they were told 'do whatever you want'.
http://www.videogamesinteractive.com...-internal.html

A lot of that appeared in the main game or turned up in the expansion.

[Gorb]

Hirmetrium, I would advise you to not post if you're going to rage at someone for having a different opinion to you. All it's going to do is cause arguments, especially about that particular game. Particularly of note is journalistic integrity, considering that's what you write as (a journalist) when covering THQ/Relic events. It's a matter of semantics.

Of course, I'm not a section moderator, so feel free to ignore me

@Fixer: huh. A lot of that content reminds me of Dawnguard . . .

[Mokino]

Fixer has the story slightly wrong; that video is of stuff that Skyrim's developers wanted to put in the game but didn't have time to implement. Some of it was indeed included in Dawnguard and patches. It was a week of brainstorming ideas after the game's release, not the developers being free of management's whip to do what they want.

I think the issue really is the focus on AAA titles solely. All of the big studios think that every project needs to be a $100 million blockbuster when that isn't the case. So many games are produced that, simply put, do not have enough content to justify the $60 price tag.

There's room for $40 titles, even on the consoles. suda51's games, for example, have all been exceptionally fun masterpieces that were unfortunately fairly short. Fun rides that sadly last only 4-8 hours. They'd be far better value if released in the 30-40 dollar range instead of the same price as Skyrim, Mass Effect, Fallout, etc.

The indie games market (and stuff like Xbox Live Arcade and PSN games) have shown there's a market for such games out there and I honestly see most of the game development market moving in that direction.

[Fixer]

It was a week of brainstorming ideas after the game's release, not the developers being free of management's whip to do what they want.

Umm.

Todd Howard discussed an annual tradition at the company: a game jam, where staff are allowed to create anything they want on company time for one week. This year, the only stipulation was creating something within the recently released Skyrim.

[Gorb]

Considering that's an annual tradition, I wonder if that alters anybody's perception of the company (or their publisher? Are they self-publishing?). It certainly seems like a neat thing to do year in, year out (from an "AAA" studio as well).

[Paladin]

@Alex, Fixer: Agreed with both of you. I've said for years that a creative endeavor can never be great when it's designed by committee. You need to have one man involved who has final control of all creative decisions, and this man needs to be the person who dreamed up the game concept in the first place. That's the only way that you have enough excitement and enthusiasm carry through into the finished product.

Granted this will still turn out bombs, when the initial vision itself wasn't all that good, but it's the only way you even have any chance whatsoever to transcend mediocrity.

[FriendlyFire]

Thing is, we're speaking of the "top" of the AAA developers here. Bethesda has quite the latitude to work with considering their pedigree and their status within their parent company. They both publish and create games, and TES in particular are huge hits every single time.

I'm afraid things aren't quite as flexible when working for an Activision or EA-owned studio. AAA is a bit of a bad categorization to make for this specific point, since it means Call of Duty as much as it means Half-Life, even though the developers behind them couldn't be any more different (at least at this stage).

[Akranadas]

I haven't read the article because I believe I shouldn't have to in order to participate in a thread on this forum; they should all be self-contained discussions.

The only person I think has come close to the core issue of why there is the risk involved in developing AAA titles is Moki.

But he hasn't gone far enough with regards to the issue. Customers are becoming increasingly more savvy when it comes to purchasing their games and getting their monies worth from the titles. These days gamers aren't buying all the AAA titles that are coming out over the year, instead they are buying a couple and waiting for various sales to pick up the rest, this is because they simply don't have the cash to throw around like they once did.

There's room for $40 titles, even on the consoles. suda51's games, for example, have all been exceptionally fun masterpieces that were unfortunately fairly short. Fun rides that sadly last only 4-8 hours. They'd be far better value if released in the 30-40 dollar range instead of the same price as Skyrim, Mass Effect, Fallout, etc.

Developers need to change their perception of what a $40 title should include. If you look on the PC market and see the flood of Free to Play games that are starting to give even AAA titles a run for their money in both content and presentation. When you compare games like Skyrim, a $80 -$100 title (depending on a platform) to a game like Space Marine at the same price, both were being billed as AAA titles at their time of release but really, only one has the content to be valued at the $80 -$100 mark while the other was simply priced too high for what it offered, and this is the issue with game pricing.

Majority of developers/publishers are continually attempting to build the next big triple AAA title (THQ is the biggest offender) which take incredible amounts of money to make and when it ends up failing (like a lot of THQ's latest games) to make up those costs you end up in a bad position. Developers and Publishers need to learn to stop punching above their weight in terms of what they can produce and learn that not all gamers are looking to purchase AAA blockbusters.

Money can be made off of those smaller titles if the game is good and the content for price is reasonable.

[Nalkor]

TL;DR of what Akranadas said - Gamers are wising up to overpriced games that offer no real replay value and either wait for sales (thus hurting profits in the eyes of investors) or going for games with TONS of content and replayability for the same or lesser price.

[Skullcap]

Won't comment on the main part of the thread, but there has been a a slow decline in gaming quality and development over the years of bigger titles, alot are generally not very innovative or are not much on a previous title. We have now alot of mass produced sequels which take what the original did, alter it abit and then add on some achievements and revamped multiplayer experience and then get sold at a premium.

Also studios and developers have changed alot over the years, when it was the likes of Sid Meier and Chris Sawyer who made games the general mentality of the gaming industry was "make a game which is challenging but also extremely fun" and they did it pretty well.

The thing is now, especially when its comes to PC titles these days is there is very little originality left, mmo genre is a good example where everyone tries to emulate WoW's sucess and then at a later point ends up either going F2P model or closing down, similar in slew is the shooter market, its either CoD or Battlefield as the supposed AAA titles and everyone else tries to emulate them in some way as they seen those titles make big money.

I agree about money being made off smaller titles, love or hate it, Minecraft is a prime example of such a thing. It started off small, somewhat unique and was sandbox, it also had very well backed community modding and sparked both creativity but imagination the world over, sure it didn't make as big money as triple A titles, but there isn't many titles of its size which can boost 6million purchases.

There is also the mis-aligned notion that PC gaming is dead (looking in brick and mortar shops you would be hard pressed to shake this belief considering I see in my local town one small shelf allocated to PC titles) and that a studio who is designing a game has to make it simply, console styled and in alot of cases in the past few years a direct port of a console title with poor keyboard/mouse and hardware tuning. I don't really know what happened here, but it feels like there was a consesus agreement that the masses of gamers had all become ADHD and could no longer deal with anything more complex than "click here, fire weapon".

Also were in a economical climate which is really quite crappy and studios closing and Layoffs happening isn't to unusual, but one needs to question where this is happening because A. there not making max profit or B. they are not doing well because of economy. To me it seems the higher ups are not seeing the $$ so their trigger fingers get itchy and down goes another studio or layoffs galore.

There is also another issue now at this point is that there isn't many unique studios left, alot are absorbed into bigger companies, relic is a example being a part of THQ. Any new studio which want to make a big AAA titles now has to approach the big companies and these big companies are just in for profit and nothing else, EA is probably the biggest offender in this catagory and can be attributed to alot abit of stagnation in the gaming industry (Hai fifa,madden, we love your 20th edition of kick a ball).

Would be nice if it went back to the older era of making games to entertain, be innovative and fun, but as long as money is involved and as long the big companies exist aswell as little incentive being given from government (tax breaks on gaming studios are only just starting to take off) grouped with a bad economy, I doubt were going to see much change or a "WOAH, THIS GAMES OSSUM" factor for games in the future to a fundemental foundation shake up of the gaming industry happens.

[Mr Carrot]

I was considering the huge rise in the investment in game advertising the other day.......

Games in the olden days used to use industry media to build up hype - and triple AAA titles is succesful actually generated more actual profit as a proportion of total investment.

With AAA titles chasing $100 million sales to spin a decent profit from a $75 million investment (If we consider 1/3rd to be advertising costs) I think it exposes a critical missmatch in the creation/awareness chain between publisher and consumer.

Whereas we used to make informed purchases based on high level journalism and early internet sources consumers are increasingly being corraled by highly expensive all-media blanket advertising combined with presumably expensive gouging of scores from multi-million view games websites - because the expansion of blogs, meta-reviews and other media sources has exposed the mass-hype business model over AAA titles to be a load of shit. e.g. Dragon Age 2's atrocious sales vs. advertising spend.

Why did this shift happen? I believe the shift in balance from relying on a good game to sell itself to adveritising (and the greater attendent investment/risk ration) has been a disasterous move in terms in the quality of games, publishers crowding out their own releases and in the financial viablity of the industry as a whole.

I think the way Dishonoured is building hype - via gameplay and industry discussion is a nod back to the older way of doing things, and I hope it saves Bethesda a shed load of adveritisng cash because they are trying to sell the game on its merits not through TOTAL GLOBAL (media) SATURATION

[Gorb]

I've never heard of Dishonoured. Just goes to show.

With a market as wide as today's entertainment market, do you honestly think the gaming world would find games easily if not advertised as much as they are? We might be able to debate the specifics of an up-and-coming game like experienced drinkers debate fine wine, but we are the exception(s) that prove the rule, in my opinion.

Gaming isn't small anymore. It isn't a niche market for nerds/people rich enough to buy a powerful computer (circa < 2000). It's an international affair with millions upon millions of consumers worldwide. Marketing is needed for information to reach across this demographic, given its size - again, in my opinion.

EDIT: that said, I don't necessarily disagree with the over-saturation of media hype, but relying on the merits of a game to sell itself is rather lacking for something that needs to reach out across multiple countries (that all have differing mother tongues).

[Trizzdog]

Are you talking about games in general? Because the indie scene contradicts your point.

[Hirmetrium]

Hirmetrium, I would advise you to not post if you're going to rage at someone for having a different opinion to you. All it's going to do is cause arguments, especially about that particular game. Particularly of note is journalistic integrity, considering that's what you write as (a journalist) when covering THQ/Relic events. It's a matter of semantics.

It is one thing to rage at somebody for having a different opinion, but entirely another to dismiss the viewpoints of a larger than normal vocal minority (and silent majority) for having very different viewpoints. That's what I was raging about.

I also don't consider what I do as journalism. I report facts. I'm a scientist. If I can't make a solid, factual deduction, then I don't make that observation (unless I'm being speculative based on previous facts or evidence). That's why I posted a long list of bullet points rather than spend time writing an article. I have no history of journalism, nor do I have any flair for writing.

I'd argue it's perfectly acceptable to call into account the journalistic integrity of a publication if said publication has not been reliable previously and has not proven otherwise. Hell, I did spend many days calling out the "facts" posted around the COH2 as inaccurate or incorrect. If anything, the whole THQ press event taught me how very, very different people can report things; especially when it comes to journalism.

But I digress.

I think establishing current facts might help shine insight into what others have rightly said above me too - Gamers want value. They want a game that will be popular, have lasting replayability, that they can play with their friends, etc. COD hits all of these targets, with constantly releasing map packs, etc. Then, at the end of it, if they are bored they trade it back for wads of cash.

As I said, I want to see some real numbers - ask how many people that walk into GAME/Gamestation how many games they buy a year, for who, and how many consoles they down. I expect a majority fall into 1-3, themselves and 1. People don't like forking out constantly for luxury items, unless they are enthusiasts. Everyone else buys a game, plays it to death in their spare few hours alongside working/home life (and they need to be action packed, fast, enjoyable hours).

It doesn't help that the gaming demographic changes constantly. Look at the difference between the 18-24 YO who has loads of time on their hands, then compare to say, the working father aged 28-36. Who makes up a bigger portion of sales? whom should the game be aimed at? Is it friendly to both groups?

On the subject of studios and the industry in general, the fact there is still no standardised and powerful union for developers says an awful lot. I partly blame that on the fragmentation and different working standards American states hold themselves to, as well as the ignorance and inaction of the governments in most of the countries where developers roam. Hell, the UK only just granted tax breaks - recognition for the workers in those companies may be a while off.

[Guilliman]

Pretty much everything has been said before now; milking of the consumer base in a prime example of capitalistic management -The big publishers in the game industry. Titles barely worth (in my eyes) 30$ using almost everything from previous titles (and I'm not even mentioning engine usage from a decade ago). Just to maximise profits.

Personally, I'm done buying games for now. Diablo 3 being the last offender. Ever since Blizzard got taken over (call it what you will), their goals shifted from quality to money money money.

I hope the market crashes at some point, though unlikely, when people realise they're being milked to the bone. I hope the big publishers go bananas and charge 100-150$ for triple A titles. Especially stuff like Game X nr 85645664 in series.


*edit; Replayability is very bad for a publisher. When games are being played for years, their new games aren't being bought as much. They'll never admit it, they'll even advertise replayability. but I'm 100% sure they'll try to prevent a game from being too fun for too long unless there's a monthly fee or micro-transactions attached.

[Fixer]

The thing that caught me out about the gaming press of late was their response to the ME3 ending before the game was on general release.

No one said it was bad, stupid, or out of place. It was all 'controversial'. No one deemed to give an opinion on it.
Every single person I know that played ME3 utterly hated that ending.

I think I'll just assume any use of that word in a modern gaming review really means 'complete shit'.

[Hirmetrium]

I think its one thing to be accepting of the ending (I mean, it was definately going to end) but quite another to denounce the viewpoint that the ending sucked. A lot. Which was the point I was trying to make - Penny Arcade (and an article later made by the PA report) denounced everyone with this viewpoint as self-entitled assholes. Then somebody brought the whole art argument out.

I really think however, we should steer this thread away from the games media, and save that for another thread (something for me to make later at home perhaps). We should keep this focused on the people whom make the games, the cost, and the risk to those people and the games they make.

I guess, what is amusing me most at the moment - Radical Entertainment did not deserve to be closed and gutted. Activision is entirely to blame here. And the cycle is about to repeat with Fall of Cybertron - which will release up against the end of the August lineup, including Darksiders 2. Somebody is going to go home bloodied and beaten, and whichever one it is will see their studio closed. That is AAA game releases. It's like publishers set themselves up to fail with these sorts of games. At least THQ are advertising Darksiders 2, and it has plenty of media coverage - I've seen very little of Fall of Cybertron. As said above, advertising.

I swear that theres a quote somewhere thats like "I spend 95% of my revenue on advertising. If I knew what advertising was the most effective, I'd recoup that instantly".

[Gorb]

@Fixer: I can find people on RN that didn't hate the ending as much as you did. Quite easily. Can we leave the drama back in the other thread where you had to hate the ending or get out? I want to leave ME3 out of this thread as much as humanely possible.

Are you talking about games in general? Because the indie scene contradicts your point.

Oh for crying out loud vB learn to auto-save replies Jesus Christ.

Basically I had a fucklong reply (to you and Hirmy), but my connection ate it. Here are the salient points:

• Would the indie market in it's current state exist without Steam? How would you envision it without the services Valve have provided?
• "indie" games of today have easier access to larger amounts of funding that "indie" games originally would have lacked (a less pervasive Internet presence, less connections between people, lack of things such as Steam and Kickstarter).

@Hirmy:

• You can't call someone out for a lack of journalistic integrity simply because their opinion differs with yours. You sat in the ME3 thread and blasted people who disagreed with you. Fixer has just done it again in the post above mine.
• You can't saddle a different author (and a guy with 12 years industry experience) with the negative stigma of an author that you felt insulted you. That's patently unfair (and childish).
• The article has tonnes to do with AAA game development, considering it explains the development cycle in a studio, the personnel required, and the differences between smaller studios and AAA developers (and the estimated monetary costs thereof). I'm unsure how you think it has nothing to do with the scene, given it was written by a long-term developer who now works as a games development consultant.
• I personally dislike unions, because of how they have too much power, but your point about the lack of standardisation is good. As games developing is a job, are there not basic job standards that they should have to uphold? Is there no body which publishers answer to with regards to the quality of working standards for their employees?

The post was longer than this, and more polite than this originally (with more smilies!). But I'm annoyed at this wireless and vB so please don't take any tone that may be evident in this post personally!

[Fixer]

@Fixer: I can find people on RN that didn't hate the ending as much as you did. Quite easily. Can we leave the drama back in the other thread where you had to hate the ending or get out? I want to leave ME3 out of this thread as much as humanely possible.

There are probably very few people that hated the ending as much as I did. That's because I am a bitter, hate filled man.

However, if there's a better recent example of a AAA game being reviewed by the gaming press with 100% being evasive about stating anything negative about the quality of something polled to be liked by only 5% of the fanbase at best. I don't know it.

The gaming media has always been cautious about upsetting it's sponsors and the producers have a habit of holding back advertising from review sites that give them poor reviews. I'm sure there's a million articles about it on the internet.

[Gorb]

Well, naturally, I can't disagree with that. I just didn't like the bitter, hate-filled example (that included hyperbole)

[Imperial Honour]

RE: "Replayability"
While that may apply to the long running 'traditional' business model used in the Games Industry that doesn't hold true for every business model in existence. As much as the industry keeps touting the 'Games as a Service' business model I would not consider the majority of the industry to be there just yet personally. A lot of them are still operating under 'traditional' business plans, or are only half way to switching to a true 'Games as a Service' business model, in my opinion. Disposable throwaway video games clash directly with the philosophy behind the 'Games as a Service' model since you need to keep the player base engaged and strong for follow up paid content to have the desire result. Compare Call of Duty to Space Marine, one game can afford to split the community with paid content (mainly map packs) while the other couldn't retain the player numbers to make it work as successfully. Call of Duty can still be considered quite disposable to a great degree at the moment, but Activision's endgame would see it become less of a annual new game release and more of persistent service thing with quicker consistent content releases instead.

[Hirmetrium]

@Gorby:
As I was trying to clarify, that wasn't the case. It's one thing to post an opinion saying you disagree, and you want consensus (MASS EFFECT PUN) and entirely another to take a dump on a very justified audience calling them "self-entitled arseholes". John Walker of RPS encountered the very same thing recently, delivering a fairly blunt insult at a group of people and he clarified and edited his news post, reinforcing why I like RPS so much. The PA report took a dump and didn't clean up, and I didn't like it. Forums are also fundamentally different - you respond directly to people. Not stand on a podium and preach to the world. It's why I don't like Total_Biscuit - he has a very powerful position and abuses it to maximum effect to gain money for himself and to rile people up. Same again for Chris Moyles. They have a morale obligation, no matter how much they want to shout and scream to deliver opinion, to be impartial - and when somebody disagrees with their opinion, they fire back insults from their castle made of supporters. Of course, this too is my opinion - but I'm not posting on a big news-site, am I?

Agreed that I discriminated against the author, and that was unfair and childish (hey, what can I say, that's how I roll). It's still reads like an interview with said person. Like I said, I hadn't read the article then, and I prefer to call out crappy websites before reading them.

Your correct, I didn't read the article properly - it was late at night when I read it and I didn't read it properly. I've editted my post. But it still blatently ignores the industry as a whole. It doesn't even define AAA development, and is mainly about how fast people get eatten up and spat out. It's ambigous for those of us who are still fuzzy on what AAA development even is nowadays.

I can see why you hate unions, because I hate them too. But this is an example where a union is the only and best course of action. It's so goddamn obvious. People are overworked, in some cases underpaid, and at the end of the day there is a tremendous boot up the arse as a reward. I also appreciate that the video game industry is fluid and familiar with the internet and using it as a recruitment and employment tool.

Re-playability is a moot argument. Bobby Kotick said it himself recently - people with buy a game. They will buy equipment for that game (steering wheel for racing game, pad for a fighting game, as examples). They will buy some DLC extras if they feel like it. They will buy a big expansion of content when it arrives. It's a model driven by the PC market in some ways, where you can't relinquish a game. Previously, games where $60. Now, players will spend something like $200 or more on it. It's a massive market that many publishers are looking into.

This is a dangerously slippery slope too - we'll jump straight into a games as a service discussion, when this should be focused on budgets, where the money goes in early dev days and the people who suffer from these projects.

[Mokino]

Hirm, the issue with unions in the game industry is that it'd have to be a widespread thing: if one studio unionises the publisher will simply shut them down.

Several major studios under one publisher would have to make the decision at once. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work.

@Fixer, Dragon Age 2? Any of the recent Call of Duty games (which are not that great experiences, honestly?) Diablo 3? So many reviews pretty much completely ignored the online DRM and error 37 issues that payola had to be involved.

[Hirmetrium]

@Mokino: Like I said, developers are pretty internet savy. Word of mouth at their workplace, etc. I'm sure there are plenty out of work whom could easily set one up. I don't see how this would be a problem, and it would be a very big deal (media-wise) for a publisher to nuke a studio just because they setup a union to follow the law. Unless, you know, you have an alternative to a union, which at this point I can't really see one.

[Mokino]

Unless it's a AAA team like the Call of Duty or WoW devs, the publisher will just shut them down with some other excuse rather than the union. If it's being discussed online, the parent company has a good chance of finding out.

It's happened to several plants around here. The workers tried to unionize and their contractors just found new suppliers. The same thing can easily happen to game devs in this economy.

[Hirmetrium]

Firing people because they join a forming union is surely legal grounds for suing in the US as unfair dismissal? It doesn't mean they work any less hard, until the union starts making demands.

Also, the world is filled with private forums and emails. There's nothing to say the publisher would find out until its too late.

[ph03nIXx]

While i dont have much to add, I want to add one thing:

Gorb, the first thing you should have done way back when it was mentioned was google-check Dishonored ;-)

[Kirjava]

We might be able to debate the specifics of an up-and-coming game like experienced drinkers debate fine wine

Now I have an absolutely beautiful image in my head of the Dolts in dinner jackets at a fancy hotel. "This Chteau Mouton '86 is rather good, wouldn't you agree, Fixer?" "Mmmm, indubitably, my good Gorb!" "Oh bother, Bowkers has taken off his trousers again."

[FriendlyFire]

Speaking of Dishonored, there's a very nice article from Polygon that ties into this whole thread fairly nicely. It details the history of two of the main guys who're working on Dishonored and it really is also an enlightening read on the state of the industry as a whole:
http://www.theverge.com/gaming/2012/...ex-arx-fatalis
(as usual, RPS can be thanked for this link)

The thing with this is that it's a lot less bleak than the PA Report's article. It details many studio closures, failures and such, but shows that through all this there is still hope. That driven people can succeed and make the games they want. That making good decisions, sticking to your guns, can work out. Instead of just saying everything's falling down the drain, it shows that if developers rise back up and fight, they can go back to the "golden age" of gaming, where you make a game because you want to do something fun, not because your publisher wants money.

@Gorb: I'd just like to elaborate on the example of the indie scene, since it does in fact show that having a huge marketing machine is not necessary. You need a lot of other concurrent circumstances to work out, but it's doable.

Attributing the indie scene's birth (or renaissance?) to Steam might be a bit of a stretch. Valve has definitely always been a driving force there, since the days of Counter-Strike. But they're far from alone. The rise of the "indie" is a bizarre mix of forces from the XBLA, PSN, Steam and I'd say most importantly the Humble Indie Bundle. The concept of driving interest by bundling cheap games together with charity was sheer brilliance and skyrocketed the movement. Since then, dozens of bundles of various forms have popped up and have been reasonably to extremely successful. While the scene might have taken longer to reach its current size without AAA publishers and developers around to boost it, I don't think they were necessary for its inception. Minecraft would've happened without them. Countless other games would've happened without them. There also were indies before indie was cool, like Introversion, who managed to make daring and often slightly broken games and run off it. Not necessarily rich, but successful enough to live from it and continue working on new titles.

However, whatever was the actual driving force behind it, the state of the matter now is that indie gaming is very much present, reinforced with the Kickstarter frenzy. It's now possible to make a successful game in an "obscure" genre (like adventure games!) without requiring dumbing down, consoleitis, or mad marketing money. You just need to have something to show and the drive to make it through.

Many fail, yes, but that's how it is for everything. We shouldn't consider the indie scene or Kickstarter a failure because only, say, 10% (arbitrary and baseless statistic) of projects go through. We should instead see it as a success because those 10% probably would not have succeeded if it weren't for the indie scene or Kickstarter. That in itself is relieving and gives me hope for what comes forward. I can tell myself that even if AAA developers keep on driving to the bottom, I can count on small(er) gems to keep my gaming going.

[Mokino]

@Hirm, yet it happens all the time. The company just needs to come up with another reason. Usually they just claim to be downsizing.

Under American law the onus is on the employees to prove the union was the reason and the courts tend to favor the corporations.

[Trizzdog]

@Gorb: Basically what FriendlyFire said.

You should have said "all DD providers" instead of just Steam because all of those services have made indie gaming much bigger than it was before. Steam is just the most proactive about providing indie games. Also funding isn't a show stopper with indie games; they eschew money with time or scale down their vision. Kickstarter has allowed for a higher "quality" ceiling and makes it possible for real studios to take on niche games, not just basement/garage developers.

And one more thing I should mention is mobile app games have really helped the indie scene too. And those "free" flash type game sites too...

[Gorb]

You should have also answered my question as I didn't actually attribute the success of the indie scene to Steam. I asked whether the indie scene would exist in its current state without Steam. In addition to asking how you think said scene would exist without Valve.

That said, I completely missed/forgot about the mobile games that have been something of a major hit in the past couple of years. However, I was primarily talking about indie developers with regards to PC gaming; I apologise if that's an unfair qualifier. Mobile apps have an easier way of being advertised (by whichever app store comes bundled with the phone) than a PC indie game which has to rely on one or more methods of digital distribution.

I wasn't going to mention other DD providers (does GamersGate provide indie games? What about GOG?) in particular Origin because I have no desire of inciting any discussion related to EA for the sake of my blood pressure

@FriendlyFire: I certainly agree that a huge marketing machine is not necessary, not in this day and age. However games that are not advertised do not sell as well as games that are advertised. Dawn of War II suffered from a lack of marketing management with THQ. Heck, even Space Marine sold better initially (and had moderately better marketing); the game's issues lead to a swift population decline, however. A more solid example would be to compare League of Legends to Heroes of Newerth. Both lacking the prestige of "DotA" 2 and the Valve trademark (which attracts people simply based on the fact Valve are making a game), LoL has been expanding at a greater rate, even since HoN changed to a "free to play" model.

You see adverts everywhere for LoL. HoN developers refused to market the game, instead actively relying on word of mouth. That has started to change, I think, but it's been a few years in coming. Maybe these two points are only tangentially linked, but in my opinion there is a real link between utilising advertising and becoming an internationally-selling game.

The indie scene is definitely here, and here to stay. In time, it could become more popular than "AAA" game development and we may see a large shift in the industry as a result. However, I was merely asking where it would be without one of the larger contributing factors in indie game distribution and advertising.

As an aside: who handles the Humble Indie Bundle? Is it not tied to a publisher/developer of some kind, or is it driven by a charity that is founded by or has reached out to game developers?

[Mokino]

HIB is an offshoot of Desura, iirc.

[FriendlyFire]

HIB is managed by Wolfire Games, who made it initially to market their (and some other devs') games. Desura is an entirely different beast, and one which caters to mods too, making it unique in that regard (well, unless you count the still nascent Steam Workshop).

Gorb, I never said that you attributed the indie scene's success to Steam; that might've been poor wording on my part. Thing is, your question is rather pointless: Steam has had an impact on the entire PC gaming market. Of course it's also had an impact on the indie scene and things wouldn't be the same without it. The one thing to gauge is how big an impact Steam has had, and I'd say that while it's not minor, the indie movement would've flourished without it. Perhaps it'd have a different form, but it'd exist and would probably be of similar size. I just don't associate Steam with indie all that much; XBLA did as much if not more, and the bundles did a LOT more. Steam merely provides a good platform for selling games which couldn't have entered the market through say retail stores.

I'd also say that marketing for a AAA title and an indie title is not the same thing. Big budget games with a 60 dollars price point attached need big guns and flashy adverts to sell the high price as being worth it; they need to look and feel AAA in everything. In contrast, indie titles can get away with word of mouth and take advantage of how many publications will be on the lookout for the next indie sensation and be willing to actively talk about indie games despite them not having a large PR department.

Oh, and obviously, an indie title can very quickly turn a profit, since costs are usually very low. Games like Dawn of War II cost millions to make and need as much to turn a profit, which can make them harder, comparatively, to develop. If you were to compare things purely on revenue, then all but a handful of indie titles are abysmal failures compared to AAA titles. Since revenue is not very useful if your expenses are so high, though, it doesn't really matter.

As for other DD providers, well it depends a lot on your definition of indie really. GamersGate is Paradox's platform; is Paradox an indie developer, considering they self-publish all their titles? GG also has the IndieFort bundle, which some call a joke but still qualifies as an "indie bundle". GOG is CD Projekt's platform; while most of the games on it are still old games, they put The Witcher 1 and 2 on there; would they be considered indie titles? They're self-published after all. Even Origin has something, since EA noticed the indie trend and is leveraging its EA Partners program to make indie bundles. People called them out about it, but still, those games are technically indie. Impulse was initially Stardock's platform, and I'd say that games like Gal Civ and Sins of a Solar Empire could qualify as indie even though they existed before "indie" was cool.

That's the biggest gripe I have with the term "indie": there's no clear definition of it. It's easy to identify certain games as indie, but often people will associate things with "indie" even though it has no bearing on the original meaning (independent, thus without publisher). Should technically impressive games like The Witcher 2 be excluded from indie because the production values are more AAA-alike? How often do people see simple games or original games as indie just because they "feel" indie?

[Lautaro]

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012...all-of-gaming/

[Misiok]

That is a good read Lautaro, it shows that at some point in time, some where, something went wrong with game making.

[Mokino]

Nothing really went "wrong." What happened is that gaming became mainstream which made development of AAA titles become closer to movie development. You've got your "summer blockbusters" (Call of Duty, Blizzard games, etc,) your middle of the road titles that fall a bit short of expections (Prototype 2,) your arthouse films (the indie scene,) etc.

Basically, AAA games (and movies) run on different rules than the others. However, while the film studios have adapted to handle the occasional failure (which are pretty much unavoidable,) the gaming companies have not.

[FriendlyFire]

I've read the beginning of this article (don't have time to read ALL of it), but I'd just like to put a small grain of salt: that site has an obvious Nintendo bias, so the ridiculous amount of Wii U praise needs to be seen in that light. There's probably insights in that article but the fanboyism got grating way too fast for me to bother reading through it all.

[Lautaro]

@FriendlyFire:

I think there's more bias in your post than in the entire article, yeah the article praises Nintendo but it also includes extensive research and figures that really help to understand why and how the game business is the way it is.

Why don't you try to read an article before criticizing it? I think that's a wise practice.

[Mokino]

There's blatant Nintendo fanboyism throughout the whole thing.

It also makes the critical mistake in assuming Wii/Nintendo development is any cheaper than 360/PS3 when it really isn't (and Wii U will be at least at par with the other consoles.) The author seems to claim Nintendo dominance but has no real facts backing that claim up.

It's also making all of these claims about the Japanese companies in 2010 and blaming the dev costs for their financial woes rather than the economic issues affecting Japan in general. However, if you ignore those parts there is a pretty decent breakdown of the costs of game development. Just their Nintendo-related facts are complete BS.

[Gorb]

"you said the post has positive Nintendo bias, YOU MUST HAVE MORE NEGATIVE NINTENDO BIAS"

No Lautaro, that's not how debates work. If he sees bias in the opening paragraph of the article, then he is entitled to call it on that.

EDIT: okay, I've read the first paragraph. I can definitely see where Moki and FriendlyFire are coming from. I'm not saying this purely to gang up on ya, Lautaro - I honestly see Nintendo bias there (and I don't mind Nintendo at all, without them I wouldn't have a tonne of a addictive Pokemon games to have wasted my childhood on. Them and Capcom, wheee).

It's an interesting look and an interesting read, though I wonder how the strategy involving the Wii U will hold up against the PS4 and Xbox '720' considering the relative lack of power the platform provides. There's also the issue of developing for older technology (which means existing expertise gets stronger, but training new staff gets more difficult over time).

I mean, in the second paragraph they blast Sony and Microsoft for upping the technology (and thus development costs) when they struggle to break even (something to note that while they might make a loss on the platform, the games and associated DLC is where the money is. As far as I know, they do alright on that front. It's the developers that get the axe ) . . . but technology is rapidly getting cheaper (especially with hardware; as an example, you can now get a laptop more powerful than my tower PC for half the price it cost me five years ago).

A critical mistake is assuming that the next-generation consoles will be more expensive to make (accounting for inflation and the like since the 360/PS3 was released; though I know the PS3 had severe launch issues with pricing).

I haven't read beyond the second paragraph yet, but I wanted to post my thoughts before they got too long. I'll continue in the morning

EDITEDIT: okay now this is really amusing. Hardware costs are 0.05% of the cost of a $60 retail game as provided by Forbes (2006) in that article. That somewhat contradicts them complaining about next-gen technology (considering in terms of software I think PC development is ahead of the consoles; more the 360 than the PS3 though, not sure on that thing's capabilities - which means money doesn't need to go into specialist R&D; the technology already exists. It can be adapted or licensed. It could have been in development already (depending on Sony and MS's respective partners with regards to graphics technology)), in my limited opinion.

[Lautaro]

I guess it's a local sport to criticize an article just by reading the first paraghraph... whatever, I just wanted to share an article with interesting numbers so YOU can make your own conclussions, nothing more.

[Gorb]

I think you're being a bit premature. Misiok says it's a good read, I'm enjoying the read personally. You didn't write the article (or did you :o) so you don't need to act like someone kicked your toys out of the pram. Constructive dissemination and criticism is a good thing to do, you know?

[Lautaro]

No, I don't even have a Wii (and my english sucks too much to write an article that it's not in spanish) , it just amuses me the people that cannot wait to give their opinion before finishing their reading.

[Gorb]

My initial reaction was to your jumping-on of FriendlyFire (who I'm sure can defend himself). I then started reading the article (then programming overwrote sleep in my brain ) and applied criticism as I went along. I haven't commented on the whole article; merely the English used within. I haven't even begun to comment on the overall opinion of the article yet.

So, yeah. Hold up, and let people post whatever they want. If their (I include myself here) criticism is faulty, you should be able to present a better counter-argument than "no u" or "the praise is backed up by facts and research" (you don't exactly deny bias by saying that ).

[Lautaro]

Still amused, Gorb, keep going... I think you can nitpick harder, don't limit yourself, boy!