Originally posted by ozmono Okay, I'll try to explain myself better. It is relevant because the executives are ultimately responsible for the management and decisions of the organisation or publisher in this case. So a publisher (run by executives whom are ultimately responsible for the management of that organisation) decides to be cautious and as a result more and more developers find that they don't need to go to them as a result, and can appeal straight to the gamers whom are not led by executives. In each of these instances there are no executives involved unlike the publishing instance where they are run by executives. So for each of this instances the entire organisation including the executives are being bypassed and made redundant in each particular scenario. Whilst with crowdfunding there are no executives that have input on deciding to fund the game.
Well, then your way of thinking is flawed and all my previous points apply - it has nothing to do with "the suits".
Okay, I'll try to explain myself better. It is relevant because the executives are ultimately responsible for the management and decisions of the organisation or publisher in this case. So a publisher (run by executives whom are ultimately responsible for the management of that organisation) decides to be cautious and as a result more and more developers find that they don't need to go to them as a result, and can appeal straight to the gamers whom are not led by executives. In each of these instances there are no executives involved unlike the publishing instance where they are run by executives. So for each of this instances the entire organisation including the executives are being bypassed and made redundant in each particular scenario. Whilst with crowdfunding there are no executives that have input on deciding to fund the game.
Well, then your way of thinking is flawed and all my previous points apply - it has nothing to do with "the suits".
I can't argue with flat out denials. I already explained several times that the ultimate responsibility of publishers management and decisions does fall on executives. Atleast the publishers that I am aware of, I'm not aware of any that don't have executives. So when someone choosing to bypass them (the entire organisation including executives who run the show) as a means to get funding and go directly to the players via crowdfunding, it is just that, bypassing them. Now as you could probably tell from the grammar I'd already started to stop bothering. It was the only post in this thread recently that I didn't bother editing after I made it. If you can't atleast explain why it has nothing to do with suits than we are done.
Originally posted by ozmono If you can't atleast explain why it has nothing to do with suits than we are done.
I already did, several times. You seem to be more focused on circumventing my points rather than understanding or adressing them.
Originally posted by Gdemami
Again, the "pressure" on development direction that is often falsely credited to publishers and "suits" is nothing more than liability for invested money. When +50M is at stake, you just do not go "creative", you make damn sure you produce something people will be willing to pay for.
If Roberts secured money from investing individual or other valid means of investment, he would be under same pressure as someone getting the money "from suits" as you put it.
If you can't atleast explain why it has nothing to do with suits than we are done.
I already did, several times. You seem to be more focused on circumventing my points rather than understanding or adressing them.
Originally posted by Gdemami
Again, the "pressure" on development direction that is often falsely credited to publishers and "suits" is nothing more than liability for invested money. When +50M is at stake, you just do not go "creative", you make damn sure you produce something people will be willing to pay for.
If Roberts secured money from investing individual or other valid means of investment, he would be under same pressure as someone getting the money "from suits" as you put it.
Fine so he is under pressure from the hundreds of thousands of backers but not by suits, agreed? He bypassed them as a means to get funding for his game, agreed?
If you can't atleast explain why it has nothing to do with suits than we are done.
I already did, several times. You seem to be more focused on circumventing my points rather than understanding or adressing them.
Originally posted by Gdemami
Again, the "pressure" on development direction that is often falsely credited to publishers and "suits" is nothing more than liability for invested money. When +50M is at stake, you just do not go "creative", you make damn sure you produce something people will be willing to pay for.
If Roberts secured money from investing individual or other valid means of investment, he would be under same pressure as someone getting the money "from suits" as you put it.
Fine so he is under pressure from the hundreds of thousands of backers but not by suits, agreed? He bypassed them as a means to get funding for his game, agreed?
Forget the first question, you don't consider it valid and you don't consider it pressure.
Originally posted by ozmono Forget the first question, you don't consider it valid and you don't consider it pressure.
It is not my consideration, that is how it works.
With pretty much any valid investment method, you are liable for money you are provided - you have to make your accounting and production transparent to investor and meet specific criterias. There are consequences and repercussions for yor actions.
Nothing of that applies for money secured via crowdfunding because it is not legitimate investment, it is a donation.
Forget the first question, you don't consider it valid and you don't consider it pressure.
It is not my consideration, that is how it works.
With pretty much any valid investment method, you are liable for money you are provided - you have to make your accounting and production transparent to investor and meet specific criterias. There are consequences and repercussions for yor actions.
Nothing of that applies for money secured via crowdfunding because it is not legitimate investment, it is a donation.
And when have I disputed that. The fact is, part of my post that you have been omitting in your quotes have already recognized this on more than one occasion. So answer the question that I told you not to forget about. Did he or did he not secure money to fund a game (with tangible results already) without going to suits?
OK I take that back, some posters on here do think suits are evil. It is the culture not the man, you cannot expect them to be something they are not and have not been trained to do. Without their business knowhow big projects would never get of the ground. Two guys in a basement can still make a good game, but not huge top notch graphics ones.
It is the clash of ethos here that is causing the issue, corporate versus creativity. Anyone who has worked with executives will know they are needed even if there are rather too many of them at times.
Originally posted by Enbysra However, there are correct approaches to doing so
Hahaha...just no.MMO development does not become "correct" because you approve so.
And vice versa. I guess if your idea is to milk customers for as much as possible and you agree, it does not make it "correct", either.
This is just rumor, but I have heard that some companies actually strive for good products and services instead of maximum profit. Again, just a rumor, but I have heard that some of these "better products/services" companies actually make money doing so. Can you believe it?
The point people are making that you refuse to acknowledge is, "Yes. Companies should make money. How much and the effect of the business over the creative aspect is 'wrong.'"
Also, in my own opinion, changing a whole genre to satisfy players (I refuse to call "non-paying players" customers) who never even liked the genre to begin with is "WRONG."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Has the business end brought us good games? Perhaps, but they have also taken away good games: Star Wars Galaxies, City of Heroes, among others.
Part of the problem with today's MMOs is that they don't just have to pay for themselves and remain viable; they also have to fund all the administrative bloat that the big publishers fork onto them. That's what killed City of Heroes and that's what kills many games today.
__________________________ "Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it." --Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints." --Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls." --Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
There is no vice versa.Milking customers, correct, good, better, should, wrong are all a set of subjective, arbitrary qualifiers that do not apply.The payment model you like does not make it correct, good, better nor how payment models should be. It is only a payment model YOU prefer. No more, no less.
Oh! I get it now. You play by a different set of rules. You can call me "wrong", but how dare I say you are. Again. It's not the first time, "Mr. Phone Surveys are PROOF of medical facts." It definitely will not be the last time you are wrong. Get used to it. You play by the SAME rules as everyone else.
Your whole lame argument is that "our opinion" does not make it fact, yet I see "your opinion" IS fact, according to you. You like MMOs as they are. Suits are doing great. I don't. Suits are ruining the genre. In your limited mind, You are right while I am wrong. I understand now. <roll eyes>
Forget it. You're as bad as Nariusseldon. Are you an "alt" of his? Your mind sure works similarly, or doesn't.
BTW, where the hell did "payment model" come from? Pull that out of your ass, too?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse. - FARGIN_WAR
Requiring suits (executives not accountants or clerks) as a means to CREATE something is an entirely different matter than the requirement to mange millions. At best you can say that executives picking and choosing where to invest their companies money and overseeing it is also required but again I disagree with that. Roberts became his own executive as a creative game developer, he may have accountants but he certainly bypassed the executives in the form of a publisher.
Now the fact that indie stuff exist is case and point. They may not be financially backed to the extent they would otherwise but they can still create. As for your question, if I count early access with crowd funding, I would say well over ten and probably closer to twenty in the last few years which I think is substantial. If suits were backing vision where vision was in demand I doubt we would have seen the explosion of indie game development via crowdfunding and early access.
Indie stuff is just indie stuff .. aside from Roberts, which is one in a million dev, how many AAA games are there? Practically zero.
The AAA market (whether we are talking about games, or movies) will not exist without suits. I am not arguing that they are creative, or good, or whatever, ... i am saying AAA entertainment would not have existed without them, which is an entirely different proposition.
In fact, look at all the AAA games, and movies .... aside from Star Citizen (and you can debate if Robert is a suit now, or does he employ suits), is there a product created without a suit involved?
All the AAA games i like (D3, Dishonored, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider ....) have suits involved. Ditto for movies.
Milking customers, correct, good, better, should, wrong are all a set of subjective, arbitrary qualifiers that do not apply.
The payment model you like does not make it correct, good, better nor how payment models should be.
It is only a payment model YOU prefer. No more, no less.
Oh! I get it now. You play by a different set of rules. You can call me "wrong", but how dare I say you are. Again. It's not the first time, "Mr. Phone Surveys are PROOF of medical facts." It definitely will not be the last time you are wrong. Get used to it. You play by the SAME rules as everyone else.
Your whole lame argument is that "our opinion" does not make it fact, yet I see "your opinion" IS fact, according to you. You like MMOs as they are. Suits are doing great. I don't. Suits are ruining the genre. In your limited mind, You are right while I am wrong. I understand now.
Forget it. You're as bad as Nariusseldon. Are you an "alt" of his? Your mind sure works similarly, or doesn't.
BTW, where the hell did "payment model" come from? Pull that out of your ass, too?
He is right in this point:
You can not judge the objective quality of a product/method/whatever just based on your personal taste and preferences. This ofcourse applies to everyone. Doing it is a fallacy called mind projection.
Liking something different doesn't mean better or worse, just different. Taste is subjective.
Requiring suits (executives not accountants or clerks) as a means to CREATE something is an entirely different matter than the requirement to mange millions. At best you can say that executives picking and choosing where to invest their companies money and overseeing it is also required but again I disagree with that. Roberts became his own executive as a creative game developer, he may have accountants but he certainly bypassed the executives in the form of a publisher.
Now the fact that indie stuff exist is case and point. They may not be financially backed to the extent they would otherwise but they can still create. As for your question, if I count early access with crowd funding, I would say well over ten and probably closer to twenty in the last few years which I think is substantial. If suits were backing vision where vision was in demand I doubt we would have seen the explosion of indie game development via crowdfunding and early access.
Indie stuff is just indie stuff .. aside from Roberts, which is one in a million dev, how many AAA games are there? Practically zero.
The AAA market (whether we are talking about games, or movies) will not exist without suits. I am not arguing that they are creative, or good, or whatever, ... i am saying AAA entertainment would not have existed without them, which is an entirely different proposition.
In fact, look at all the AAA games, and movies .... aside from Star Citizen (and you can debate if Robert is a suit now, or does he employ suits), is there a product created without a suit involved?
All the AAA games i like (D3, Dishonored, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider ....) have suits involved. Ditto for movies.
The point is Indie stuff can step in when publishers and suits fail to meet demand and they have been. What has already been released with Star Citizen is definitely of AAA quality even if they are independent. Roberts isn't alone although he has by far raised the most. Elite Dangerous is a great crowdfunded game and the fact that two games raised so much from the same niche shows me that there was an unmet demand that suits weren't prepared to meet. If they continue to ignore demand I think we will continue to see the rise of indie gaming.
Now Roberts made himself as a game development but for all intents and purposes is a suit now, that said he didn't depend on suits for his game to get funded or to start creating. He is a game developer with experience that was able to metamorphosize. If he can do it I don't see why it is impossible for others to do it. So you can argue that a large game needs executives and you have a point but I don't see why game developers can't assume that role as Roberts has done. Or to put it another way they seem to be more disposable than the game developers themselves.
Comments
^
/endofthread
Well, then your way of thinking is flawed and all my previous points apply - it has nothing to do with "the suits".
You can't have a cake an eat it whole.
I can't argue with flat out denials. I already explained several times that the ultimate responsibility of publishers management and decisions does fall on executives. Atleast the publishers that I am aware of, I'm not aware of any that don't have executives. So when someone choosing to bypass them (the entire organisation including executives who run the show) as a means to get funding and go directly to the players via crowdfunding, it is just that, bypassing them. Now as you could probably tell from the grammar I'd already started to stop bothering. It was the only post in this thread recently that I didn't bother editing after I made it. If you can't atleast explain why it has nothing to do with suits than we are done.
Hahaha...just no.
MMO development does not become "correct" because you approve so.
I already did, several times. You seem to be more focused on circumventing my points rather than understanding or adressing them.
If Roberts secured money from investing individual or other valid means of investment, he would be under same pressure as someone getting the money "from suits" as you put it.
Fine so he is under pressure from the hundreds of thousands of backers but not by suits, agreed? He bypassed them as a means to get funding for his game, agreed?
Forget the first question, you don't consider it valid and you don't consider it pressure.
He is not. He is not liable for money collected via crowdfunding at all.
Right so answer the second question. Did he still secure money to fund a game without going to suits?
If it wasn't true, then why would SOE offer refunds?
Wasn't the whole reason that refunds were offerend because players didn't approve of how they developed H1Z1?
Isn't a player asking for a refund telling developer they don't approve of how they developed their game?
It is not my consideration, that is how it works.
With pretty much any valid investment method, you are liable for money you are provided - you have to make your accounting and production transparent to investor and meet specific criterias. There are consequences and repercussions for yor actions.
Nothing of that applies for money secured via crowdfunding because it is not legitimate investment, it is a donation.
I already said that this questions or thoughts makes no sense and explained why...
And when have I disputed that. The fact is, part of my post that you have been omitting in your quotes have already recognized this on more than one occasion. So answer the question that I told you not to forget about. Did he or did he not secure money to fund a game (with tangible results already) without going to suits?
So a simple question makes no sense? Yes or no did Roberts get money from crowdfunding rather than publishers who are run by executives?
OK I take that back, some posters on here do think suits are evil. It is the culture not the man, you cannot expect them to be something they are not and have not been trained to do. Without their business knowhow big projects would never get of the ground. Two guys in a basement can still make a good game, but not huge top notch graphics ones.
It is the clash of ethos here that is causing the issue, corporate versus creativity. Anyone who has worked with executives will know they are needed even if there are rather too many of them at times.
This is just rumor, but I have heard that some companies actually strive for good products and services instead of maximum profit. Again, just a rumor, but I have heard that some of these "better products/services" companies actually make money doing so. Can you believe it?
The point people are making that you refuse to acknowledge is, "Yes. Companies should make money. How much and the effect of the business over the creative aspect is 'wrong.'"
Also, in my own opinion, changing a whole genre to satisfy players (I refuse to call "non-paying players" customers) who never even liked the genre to begin with is "WRONG."
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
There is no vice versa.
Milking customers, correct, good, better, should, wrong are all a set of subjective, arbitrary qualifiers that do not apply.
The payment model you like does not make it correct, good, better nor how payment models should be.
It is only a payment model YOU prefer. No more, no less.
Has the business end brought us good games? Perhaps, but they have also taken away good games: Star Wars Galaxies, City of Heroes, among others.
Part of the problem with today's MMOs is that they don't just have to pay for themselves and remain viable; they also have to fund all the administrative bloat that the big publishers fork onto them. That's what killed City of Heroes and that's what kills many games today.
__________________________
"Its sad when people use religion to feel superior, its even worse to see people using a video game to do it."
--Arcken
"...when it comes to pimping EVE I have little restraints."
--Hellmar, CEO of CCP.
"It's like they took a gun, put it to their nugget sack and pulled the trigger over and over again, each time telling us how great it was that they were shooting themselves in the balls."
--Exar_Kun on SWG's NGE
Your whole lame argument is that "our opinion" does not make it fact, yet I see "your opinion" IS fact, according to you. You like MMOs as they are. Suits are doing great. I don't. Suits are ruining the genre. In your limited mind, You are right while I am wrong. I understand now. <roll eyes>
Forget it. You're as bad as Nariusseldon. Are you an "alt" of his? Your mind sure works similarly, or doesn't.
BTW, where the hell did "payment model" come from? Pull that out of your ass, too?
- Al
Personally the only modern MMORPG trend that annoys me is the idea that MMOs need to be designed in a way to attract people who don't actually like MMOs. Which to me makes about as much sense as someone trying to figure out a way to get vegetarians to eat at their steakhouse.- FARGIN_WAR
Indie stuff is just indie stuff .. aside from Roberts, which is one in a million dev, how many AAA games are there? Practically zero.
The AAA market (whether we are talking about games, or movies) will not exist without suits. I am not arguing that they are creative, or good, or whatever, ... i am saying AAA entertainment would not have existed without them, which is an entirely different proposition.
In fact, look at all the AAA games, and movies .... aside from Star Citizen (and you can debate if Robert is a suit now, or does he employ suits), is there a product created without a suit involved?
All the AAA games i like (D3, Dishonored, Deus Ex, Tomb Raider ....) have suits involved. Ditto for movies.
He is right in this point:
You can not judge the objective quality of a product/method/whatever just based on your personal taste and preferences. This ofcourse applies to everyone. Doing it is a fallacy called mind projection.
Liking something different doesn't mean better or worse, just different. Taste is subjective.
The point is Indie stuff can step in when publishers and suits fail to meet demand and they have been. What has already been released with Star Citizen is definitely of AAA quality even if they are independent. Roberts isn't alone although he has by far raised the most. Elite Dangerous is a great crowdfunded game and the fact that two games raised so much from the same niche shows me that there was an unmet demand that suits weren't prepared to meet. If they continue to ignore demand I think we will continue to see the rise of indie gaming.
Now Roberts made himself as a game development but for all intents and purposes is a suit now, that said he didn't depend on suits for his game to get funded or to start creating. He is a game developer with experience that was able to metamorphosize. If he can do it I don't see why it is impossible for others to do it. So you can argue that a large game needs executives and you have a point but I don't see why game developers can't assume that role as Roberts has done. Or to put it another way they seem to be more disposable than the game developers themselves.