Originally posted by JamesP I think some people who have actually worked in the industry would tell you differently... Why do you think there are people leaving the AAA scene all the time starting up their own Indie Companies so they are free from "Suits" telling them what to do and how to make their games. They leave so they don't have their creativity stifled... Look at the Developers of TorchLight and TorchLight 2 alot of them worked for Blizzard I believe it was and they left so they could let their creativity shine through instead of being told what to do by their investors.
Ah but more would probably say how they wish they would have stayed at the AAA dev because their indie venture fell flat and now they are struggling to get by.
You cannot have success without failure. How can there be something 'better' if people are afraid to leave and do something different (out of fear of failure). You have to take a risk at some point.
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
nah ...
a) entertainment *is* business. They are not mutually exclusive.
b) creativity != risk. And who says risks goes away? There are plenty of risky moves in big entertainment from the Lone Ranger, John Carter in movies, to TOR in video games.
In fact, the bottomline encourages competition, and when your business is not working, innovate or die.
Entertainment is definitely not business. Entertainment (by definition) mean to be provided by enjoyment or amusement -- which could literally be anything.
Entertainment can be a form of business (which is what I think you meant).
When measuring risk you have to add in severity. That is to say some risks are more damaging (more risky) than other risks. Creativity is a bigger risk than a risky move because it has nothing to start from. Your examples of risk is following a known pattern.
Sales and Marketing will only get you so far when there is such fierce competition. The evidence of this is presented to you annually because every year there is a new MMO that starts strong because of Sales and Marketing but ends weak because it was a bad product from the beginning.
Look at how Wildstar and Archeage started and look at where they are at now.
Wildstar had design issues which is not a matter of money unless you believe they could get someone with more sense. In retrospect the finance guys will look back and think good thing we put it into marketing which at least boosted our initial sales.
This is what it comes down to: marketing = guaranteed money return. Everything else is risky. Same reason you don't see much innovation - it's another risk noone is willing to take. You mention wow and look at what they do - they find the most popular things and copy them. First pokemon, then farmville, now browsergames with their wod garrison.
Yes, gaming companies do need investros, the problem is when the investors starts to micro manage the devs.
If you hire in a competent lead designer who have proven himself before you should let him (or her for that matter) handle the game and focus on marketting and such.
I bet all MMO designers are gamers themselves and they do know what gamers like. By telling them something like "make something very similar to WoW but with better graphics" you will probably get your money back but you wont make a great game and a great game outsells any cheap copy.
Sun Tzu said that politicians should let the generals handle the war and just set some simple prime directives and the same goes here. Instead of forcing the devs to make Wow again just tell them you want a fantasy MMO and let them make the mechanics and world based on the budget they get.
Suits are not a bad thing as long as they do what they are good at, but leave the game design to the game designers.
I myself am a toolmaker, I code and run machines to make parts that an engineer draws. The engineer makes an excellent work but if we switch or if he starts to micromanage what I do it would all turn to crap.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
MMOs have always been both.
Kind of, but it is way out of balance now. Before the thought process went something like: "Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly."MMOs used to be "ideas" that sometimes (many times?) made money. Pushing the technical envelope was the driving force, not making millions, as it seems today.I could be wrong. I often am Maybe the original developers had dollar signs in their eyes first and foremost :)I make my assumption on the differences in MMOs long ago (so much variety) and the similarities of them today.
"Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly." I agree with you there but I don't see it as anything having changed. It isn't so much of a then vs now thing but a hobbyist/indie vs professional studio thing. When your mortgage isn't on the line, you have far more opportunity for risk and creativity than when the game's development is your bread and butter. Size of the studio also makes a difference. The dozen or so that worked on EVE in the beginning, the Above and Beyond Tech team... at that size you can huddle up and commit to the sacrifices by committee in order to get done what you want to get done. A company of 100? 500? The amount of people negatively impacted by a bad decision is the issue. One of the big reasons for avoiding risk sometimes is that the cost is measured not just in revenue but in jobs. Hundreds of them.
That is a good point. But what about Mythic, SOE, and the other "big houses" that developed the first MMORPGS? These were not "indy houses" that did not have rent to pay. Or were they? They "seemed" to care more about what they could do on a PC then how much money they could make, though I am sure that factored in.
I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
- 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
Yes, gaming companies do need investros, the problem is when the investors starts to micro manage the devs.
If you hire in a competent lead designer who have proven himself before you should let him (or her for that matter) handle the game and focus on marketting and such.
I bet all MMO designers are gamers themselves and they do know what gamers like. By telling them something like "make something very similar to WoW but with better graphics" you will probably get your money back but you wont make a great game and a great game outsells any cheap copy.
Sun Tzu said that politicians should let the generals handle the war and just set some simple prime directives and the same goes here. Instead of forcing the devs to make Wow again just tell them you want a fantasy MMO and let them make the mechanics and world based on the budget they get.
Suits are not a bad thing as long as they do what they are good at, but leave the game design to the game designers.
I myself am a toolmaker, I code and run machines to make parts that an engineer draws. The engineer makes an excellent work but if we switch or if he starts to micromanage what I do it would all turn to crap.
That is a good point. But what about Mythic, SOE, and the other "big houses" that developed the first MMORPGS? These were not "indy houses" that did not have rent to pay. Or were they? They "seemed" to care more about what they could do on a PC then how much money they could make, though I am sure that factored in.
I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
Mythic actually did start out as a relatively small studio. And grew with the success of DAoC, only to be devoured by EA. RIP.
SOE on the other hand, is a bit of an outlier for this topic. SOE is notoriously a company that makes a good games, with some really interesting / innovative game mechanics / designs. And, without fail, they almost always ruin those games with horrible last-minute business decisions. I.E. Smeddly Greed is a common joke amongst the players.
They aren't afraid of taking risks, but they usually overcompensate for that w/ a fairly overaggressive cashshop.
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
nah ...
a) entertainment *is* business. They are not mutually exclusive.
b) creativity != risk. And who says risks goes away? There are plenty of risky moves in big entertainment from the Lone Ranger, John Carter in movies, to TOR in video games.
In fact, the bottomline encourages competition, and when your business is not working, innovate or die.
Entertainment is definitely not business. Entertainment (by definition) mean to be provided by enjoyment or amusement -- which could literally be anything.
Entertainment can be a form of business (which is what I think you meant).
When measuring risk you have to add in severity. That is to say some risks are more damaging (more risky) than other risks. Creativity is a bigger risk than a risky move because it has nothing to start from. Your examples of risk is following a known pattern.
The argument is kind of moot. Nothing is technically a business, until there's a market for it and people find a way to profit off of it. At that point anything can be considered a business. Necessities, luxuries, entertainment, education, it doesn't matter.
That said, creativity is definitely symbiotic with risk. You need to take risks to do something creative. Being creative means taking a risk on something unknown, because you believe you can make something amazing. This goes beyond just art, and also applies to things like science / inventions / etc. You cannot have innovation without risk, and creativity is all about innovation. Trying new things, and doing things in new and interesting ways.
Which is ironic, because narfuss says this and contradicts it at the same time. Bottom line, business encourages stability. Business looks to find the known (a formula) to engineer success / profit.This is where you get companies like EA. Such practices are at complete odds with the creative process. You can't embrace risky experimentation by adhering to a predefined formula. And we see the problems w/ doing so all over the place, from Movies & TV, to the music industry, and now games. Just as we see the benefits of taking those risks all over, from the MMO, to self-managed bands, to netflix.
(btw, Lone Ranger, & John Carter are horrible examples of risky movies)
Originally posted by AlBQuirky That is a good point. But what about Mythic, SOE, and the other "big houses" that developed the first MMORPGS? These were not "indy houses" that did not have rent to pay. Or were they? They "seemed" to care more about what they could do on a PC then how much money they could make, though I am sure that factored in.I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
Mythic actually did start out as a relatively small studio. And grew with the success of DAoC, only to be devoured by EA. RIP.SOE on the other hand, is a bit of an outlier for this topic. SOE is notoriously a company that makes a good games, with some really interesting / innovative game mechanics / designs. And, without fail, they almost always ruin those games with horrible last-minute business decisions. I.E. Smeddly Greed is a common joke amongst the players.They aren't afraid of taking risks, but they usually overcompensate for that w/ a fairly overaggressive cashshop.
Thanks for that. I was wracking my brains trying to recall the old studios. I still can not recall UO's, Neverwinter's, or other older MMO's original studios.
Anyway, while out shopping, I had another thought on this. Most studios (where "suits" reside) do not have one and only one game in its stable. Thinking that any one game needs to pay the rent, expenses, and further development is really a rare case, these days, thanks to EA et al buying successful smaller studios up
- 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
Everyone paints financial powers as evil; claims are made that they stifle innovation and manipulate or even limit creativity. What people overlook is, they drive progress and ensure results. They act as anchors to keep devs grounded and realistic. With the popularity of ks rising, devs continue to assert that corporate suits act as obstacles to realizing their dreams, while the public further condemns them as they lose themselves in exaggerated promises of the impossible being attainable.
How many times have you heard “We had to launch 6 months before we were ready”? People forget resources are finite, and it’s the corporate people that ensure games get released. Over the recent years, all I’ve read is ‘We reluctantly took our game in that direction because the suits upstairs made us’. ‘Activision is only concerned with the bottom line’, devs are too but they’d never admit it. ‘We don’t want that money, they’ll make us duplicate WoW’, investors assess situations diligently and probably concluded the game would be too niche to be profitable with its proposed features. Mmo’s don’t exist without profit, that’s why f2p and p2p games alike have cash shops. Players pay beyond server costs because devs want money too. There are instances where designs are negotiated, not because financial powers want to be creative barriers but because they wish to reach a wider audience. Devs have been known to lose sight of this and believe the entire world will surely partake as their vision is utter perfection.
Regardless of the position you take in the gaming industry, unless you can finance your own dreams, you are going to have someone to answer to; everyone has a boss. In a ks campaign, investors take the form of backers. They often forget their role and proclaim themselves as loyal supporters until ventures are abandoned and reality sets in. That’s when people cry “Fraud!” and exclaim ks starters scammed them of their money with no consolation or little recourse. They too have expectations, they expect promises to be fulfilled and milestones reached in a timely manner.
It's rare that dev teams account for their shortcomings or overreaching designs, there is a tendency to pass the buck. Countless designers complain that they are never given enough time to complete their vision; features had to be compromised and games were rushed to launch without polish. With this declaration, gamers share their disappointment in what could have been and further blame publishers. Sometimes, there's just no money for 6 more months. Numerous games and ideas would go on forever, perpetually improving with improbable success in reaching perfection without repeated nudges from publishers. The world runs on commerce, and a project that never concludes is a money sink; no reasonable person would continually throw money at those endeavors indefinitely.
Imagine the reaction if a dev team repeatedly extends deadlines and financial goals without offering tangible results. Ks backers finance campaigns because they want a completed playable product, while corporate financers seek profit, regardless of their personal interest in the project. Everyone expects progress reports to be released regularly. It is unreasonable for devs to demand decade long deadlines while being paid premium wages for that duration. Furthermore, it is egregious to expect the public to wait forever for a playable game.
Investors and publishers should be considered from a different perspective rather than condemned as villains. Devs and gamers need to acknowledge games for the business enterprises that they really are. People don’t do things for free, not the creative minds behind endeavors, nor the programmers that realize visions. To believe otherwise would be naïve.
Edit:
I was wrong! They are indeed villainous shits!
This post is classic, down to the next day edit. I didn't even see the comments yet. This one deserves truffle oil popcorn...
When I wrote OP, I neglected to consider things I discussed at the end of page 4. heh
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
nah ...
a) entertainment *is* business. They are not mutually exclusive.
b) creativity != risk. And who says risks goes away? There are plenty of risky moves in big entertainment from the Lone Ranger, John Carter in movies, to TOR in video games.
In fact, the bottomline encourages competition, and when your business is not working, innovate or die.
Entertainment is definitely not business. Entertainment (by definition) mean to be provided by enjoyment or amusement -- which could literally be anything.
Entertainment can be a form of business (which is what I think you meant).
When measuring risk you have to add in severity. That is to say some risks are more damaging (more risky) than other risks. Creativity is a bigger risk than a risky move because it has nothing to start from. Your examples of risk is following a known pattern.
I would argue cloning WoW has become risky as everyone groans at the thought of yet another one.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
MMOs have always been both.
Kind of, but it is way out of balance now. Before the thought process went something like: "Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly."
MMOs used to be "ideas" that sometimes (many times?) made money. Pushing the technical envelope was the driving force, not making millions, as it seems today.
I could be wrong. I often am Maybe the original developers had dollar signs in their eyes first and foremost
I make my assumption on the differences in MMOs long ago (so much variety) and the similarities of them today.
"Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly."
I agree with you there but I don't see it as anything having changed. It isn't so much of a then vs now thing but a hobbyist/indie vs professional studio thing. When your mortgage isn't on the line, you have far more opportunity for risk and creativity than when the game's development is your bread and butter. Size of the studio also makes a difference. The dozen or so that worked on EVE in the beginning, the Above and Beyond Tech team... at that size you can huddle up and commit to the sacrifices by committee in order to get done what you want to get done. A company of 100? 500? The amount of people negatively impacted by a bad decision is the issue. One of the big reasons for avoiding risk sometimes is that the cost is measured not just in revenue but in jobs. Hundreds of them.
That is a good point. But what about Mythic, SOE, and the other "big houses" that developed the first MMORPGS? These were not "indy houses" that did not have rent to pay. Or were they? They "seemed" to care more about what they could do on a PC then how much money they could make, though I am sure that factored in.
I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
I can think of 2 but I'd classify them as scammers who aren't really building anything and just taking money.
Edit: Wannabe suits with microscopic budgets and very few to order around. They mistook their idiocy for talent.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
MMOs have always been both.
Kind of, but it is way out of balance now. Before the thought process went something like: "Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly."
MMOs used to be "ideas" that sometimes (many times?) made money. Pushing the technical envelope was the driving force, not making millions, as it seems today.
I could be wrong. I often am Maybe the original developers had dollar signs in their eyes first and foremost
I make my assumption on the differences in MMOs long ago (so much variety) and the similarities of them today.
"Can we do this on a computer?" "I think so." "Cool! Can we make money at it?" "Possibly."
I agree with you there but I don't see it as anything having changed. It isn't so much of a then vs now thing but a hobbyist/indie vs professional studio thing. When your mortgage isn't on the line, you have far more opportunity for risk and creativity than when the game's development is your bread and butter. Size of the studio also makes a difference. The dozen or so that worked on EVE in the beginning, the Above and Beyond Tech team... at that size you can huddle up and commit to the sacrifices by committee in order to get done what you want to get done. A company of 100? 500? The amount of people negatively impacted by a bad decision is the issue. One of the big reasons for avoiding risk sometimes is that the cost is measured not just in revenue but in jobs. Hundreds of them.
That is a good point. But what about Mythic, SOE, and the other "big houses" that developed the first MMORPGS? These were not "indy houses" that did not have rent to pay. Or were they? They "seemed" to care more about what they could do on a PC then how much money they could make, though I am sure that factored in.
I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
You seem to be under the impression that making a game to make money wasn't their main plan. Maybe you're right. I think get the feeling it was a big part of it, though. Who knows. And Mythic could hardly be considered a 'big house' when it had a payroll of two dozen, no? And do we really want to go into the whole Origin/EA thing? Who knows what UO2, Privateer Online or Harry Potter Online could have been, right? Then there's also the matter of whether or not those MMOs were good or if we've just got our rose-tinted goggles on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Channce Typical progressive talking point, everyone who has made it to a higher level (excluding themselves) is some sort of evil person. Oh, they also exclude actors, musicians, corrupt politicians that play to them and athletes.
The "suits" are not the people who make it to a "higher level". This idea is really exactly the problem. Many "suits" are in no way more successful than many devs.
I don't really consider Brian Fargo at InXile a "suit" even though we was responsible for securing funding in various ways for Wasteland 2. Fargo was a quite successful professional dev/producer etc. Many of the people he was pitching too were actuall LESS accomplished. They may have been in charge of funding disbursement, but they were not on a "higher level" in anyway. They merely had a cock block on potential resources.
The "suits" were the idiots who wouldn't listen to his pitch because old-school RPGs are just not "the in thing" and failed to capitalize on what has proven to be a money making opportunity.
Fargo, for the most part, delivered on his word roughly at budget and not too delayed (which is fine for a majorly large RPG, which is quite complex). He displayed competent and decently trustworthy management. This does not make him a "suit" just because we was wearing a CEO or manager hat.
Many of the best managers are not "suits". Many of the best managers are in fact experts at not allowing "suits" to invariably ruin things. At least in larger outfits.
This doesn't mean that things like marketing and advertising etc are not important. Of course they are. But if you have a guy with a marketing degree with the power to override or change scope on your dev manager then you are 9/10 times going to see a clusterfuck. Its like having a chimp being able to control what Einstein should be researching. Again that doesn't mean you ignore marketing or that there shouldn't be compromises for marketing/advertising concerns.
Anyone who thinks that some Pres or VP of marketing or accounts is on a "higher level" than a guy with multiple profitable games produced over a 20 year career is basically living in la la land. Doesn't mean that really good producer/dev always knows what will make money, but the idea that those "suits" are on a "higher level" is risable.
The "suits" are not the people who make it to a "higher level". This idea is really exactly the problem. Many "suits" are in no way more successful than many devs.
You keep pushing this angle, so I really am curious if you can share the data you are basing that on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Originally posted by Channce Typical progressive talking point, everyone who has made it to a higher level (excluding themselves) is some sort of evil person. Oh, they also exclude actors, musicians, corrupt politicians that play to them and athletes.
The "suits" are not the people who make it to a "higher level". This idea is really exactly the problem. Many "suits" are in no way more successful than many devs.
**snip for length**
This doesn't mean that things like marketing and advertising etc are not important. Of course they are. But if you have a guy with a marketing degree with the power to override or change scope on your dev manager then you are 9/10 times going to see a clusterfuck. Its like having a chimp being able to control what Einstein should be researching. Again that doesn't mean you ignore marketing or that there shouldn't be compromises for marketing/advertising concerns.
Anyone who thinks that some Pres or VP of marketing or accounts is on a "higher level" than a guy with multiple profitable games produced over a 20 year career is basically living in la la land. Doesn't mean that really good producer/dev always knows what will make money, but the idea that those "suits" are on a "higher level" is risable.
I don't disagree, but the problem is that the term 'suits' is an over-generalized term to begin with. As are the terms 'evil' and 'villain'. They would be more applicable if life behaved like an anime, but it does not. Things aren't that black and white.
Getting into an argument over 'levels of success' is also moot, and a moving goal post. Objectively speaking artists will always be 'less successful' in terms of raw capital, than those who go into more traditional business ventures. An oil tycoon, store chain owner, venture capitalist / etc. is going to make even the most accomplished creatives look poor by comparison. Indeed many of the more accomplished creatives have more traditional business ventures on the side for extra revenue / stable incomes. But that's all besides the point.
The problem with this whole setup is that financing is a necessary evil when it comes to game development. The people who are the most experienced at amassing wealth are going to be the best financiers. That said, amassing wealth and designing a game are two extremely different skill sets. You wouldn't have a high-rolling stock trader telling scientists how to design a rocket he helped pay for. Then why is it somehow acceptable for him to dictate how a game is designed? It may not have the same safety issue, but the experience gap is still there. It's not even a question of intelligence or accomplishment. It's a matter of who has the right knowledge for the right jobs. Creatives often get misunderstood when it comes to topics such as these, because people often undervalue their skillsets.
- Heck, the most popular game on the market right now (league of legends) was developed by a guy making a game no one thought had any value. It wasn't until Blizzard realized that DotA actually had a serious following that they fought icefrog for the rights to the IP he did all the work for. He essentially invented his own genre, that has grown into the 'new hotness' that every company is trying to get a piece of currently.
Can you imagine if he tried to make the same game with business men questioning his decisions? DotA / League would've quite possible devolved into either another WoW-type arena game, or a starcraft clone.
Suits are not a bad thing as long as they do what they are good at, but leave the game design to the game designers.
True, but suppose the game designers are pissing away the money, extending deadlines all under the name of "but it will be sooooo awesome!"
And it probably will be. Right before they shut their doors because it was only awesome to a few people.
As I said in an earlier post, I know of arts organizations that had to fold because the artists always got their way.
I think the thing that is needed is either a balance between business guys and the artists or let the artists have their way as long as there are no huge financial repercussions.
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
Suits are not a bad thing as long as they do what they are good at, but leave the game design to the game designers.
True, but suppose the game designers are pissing away the money, extending deadlines all under the name of "but it will be sooooo awesome!"
And it probably will be. Right before they shut their doors because it was only awesome to a few people.
As I said in an earlier post, I know of arts organizations that had to fold because the artists always got their way.
I think the thing that is needed is either a balance between business guys and the artists or let the artists have their way as long as there are no huge financial repercussions.
This is where producers are supposed to come. Again, essentially the way it's supposed to work is as such:
The devs / financiers come up w/ a game plan they can agree on. The producers make sure they devs are sticking to that plan and staying on schedule. They are not making design decisions (or at least they shouldn't be).
Generally speaking it's also reasonable to expect things to go longer (over-budget), for people w/ any sort of experience in this field). As such it's not uncommon for those financing to factor this into their original agree (a buffer, so to speak), so thinks aren't screwed if / when things go a few days, etc. beyond schedule.
- If a dev is incompetent to the point where it looks like they can't deliver on a project, a few things happen. Either the project is pulled, and given to a more competent team. Or, the project is canned entirely (and the financiers cut their losses). While this can suck to the people funding the project, there are a few things to keep inmind:
1) Devs that do this repeatedly do develop a reputation. They don't tend to last long.
2) There is a known risk involved w/ dealing in this industry. Anyone trying to invest money into a project without doing their homework is just asking for trouble. Just like stocks, if you invest into something you know nothing about, you are asking to lose your money.
The devs are the Villains imo. They are the ones selling their souls to crank out garbage. If every Dev refused to make another empty WoW clone we would have zero problems.
You couldn't pay a top chef enough to serve a can of chef boyardee in their restaurant so why are top developers serving proverbial chef boyardee to us gamers? Have a little dignity.
Lol. If only life were that simple.
Often the choice is 'make this sub par game', or don't pay your bills. Don't eat, don't provide for your family. Very few people have the luxury to make the choice you are describing. Especially if we're looking at AAA game budgets. Sadly, game design is one of those disciplines that everyone thinks they can do. It's rarely valued properly. As a result, it's rare that a dev would have the same amount of clout as a 5 star chef.
Not true at all.
The quality of console games has gone up over the past decade while MMO's have stagnated. Why is this? Because console devs still care about the end product. It's evident MMO devs are just in it for the paycheck, with little regard for the quality of their work. Proven by the fact almost every MMO after WoW has been a lazy copy or 1 month wonder.
It's strange because MMO's have the biggest payout for longevity and yet none of them are built to last.
The devs are the Villains imo. They are the ones selling their souls to crank out garbage. If every Dev refused to make another empty WoW clone we would have zero problems.
You couldn't pay a top chef enough to serve a can of chef boyardee in their restaurant so why are top developers serving proverbial chef boyardee to us gamers? Have a little dignity.
Lol. If only life were that simple.
Often the choice is 'make this sub par game', or don't pay your bills. Don't eat, don't provide for your family. Very few people have the luxury to make the choice you are describing. Especially if we're looking at AAA game budgets. Sadly, game design is one of those disciplines that everyone thinks they can do. It's rarely valued properly. As a result, it's rare that a dev would have the same amount of clout as a 5 star chef.
Not true at all.
The quality of console games has gone up over the past decade while MMO's have stagnated. Why is this? Because console devs still care about the end product. It's evident MMO devs are just in it for the paycheck, with little regard for the quality of their work. Proven by the fact almost every MMO after WoW has been a lazy copy or 1 month wonder.
It's strange because MMO's have the biggest payout for longevity and yet none of them are built to last.
Consoles vs. MMOs is another topic entirely.
If you think that MMO devs don't care about their projects, you are very much mistaken. As for the quality of games between the two, keep this in mind. There are multiple times more console games being made, than there are MMOs. This is primarily because of how expensive it is to make an MMO.
Not just financially, but the manpower involved as well. Why do MMOs often seem sub par to single player games? For the following reasons:
1) When you make an MMO, it's like making a handful of games simultaneously, and they all have to function together within the same space. When you make a single-player game all of your efforts can go into a smaller number of aspects. You can focus on making a few things really well, rather than dozens of things average.
2) MMOs are a LOT more risky than console games. Not only are they more expensive, but you have a harder time dealing w/ bugs (there are a lot more variables to consider when dealing w/ many different pc configurations); in addition to this they take longer to make. Which means you have to wait longer to see results. If a console game doesn't do well you know relatively quick (within a couple years) during which time you can learn from that for the next project. With an MMO you can be working on that one project for half a decade + before you see the final result.
- Simply put, it's a lot easier to take risks, and to polish a console game. With how costly MMOs are it's a lot harder to get people on board with a project that's trying to take too many risks. Which often translates into either less funding / a rushed product, or a project in which a businessman is dictating design decisions to help guarantee a return on investment.
That said I wouldn't call the MMO genre stagnant yet. The AAA MMOs, maybe, but there are a lot of options across every genre atm. We have more games to choose from than we ever had before. MMOs are changing, and the original MMOs that pioneered the genre are probably a thing of the past. Instead what we are seeing is a merging of MMOs and other forms of online multiplayer gameplay.
Comments
You cannot have success without failure. How can there be something 'better' if people are afraid to leave and do something different (out of fear of failure). You have to take a risk at some point.
Entertainment is definitely not business. Entertainment (by definition) mean to be provided by enjoyment or amusement -- which could literally be anything.
Entertainment can be a form of business (which is what I think you meant).
When measuring risk you have to add in severity. That is to say some risks are more damaging (more risky) than other risks. Creativity is a bigger risk than a risky move because it has nothing to start from. Your examples of risk is following a known pattern.
Wildstar had design issues which is not a matter of money unless you believe they could get someone with more sense. In retrospect the finance guys will look back and think good thing we put it into marketing which at least boosted our initial sales.
This is what it comes down to: marketing = guaranteed money return. Everything else is risky. Same reason you don't see much innovation - it's another risk noone is willing to take. You mention wow and look at what they do - they find the most popular things and copy them. First pokemon, then farmville, now browsergames with their wod garrison.
Pi*1337/100 = 42
Yes, gaming companies do need investros, the problem is when the investors starts to micro manage the devs.
If you hire in a competent lead designer who have proven himself before you should let him (or her for that matter) handle the game and focus on marketting and such.
I bet all MMO designers are gamers themselves and they do know what gamers like. By telling them something like "make something very similar to WoW but with better graphics" you will probably get your money back but you wont make a great game and a great game outsells any cheap copy.
Sun Tzu said that politicians should let the generals handle the war and just set some simple prime directives and the same goes here. Instead of forcing the devs to make Wow again just tell them you want a fantasy MMO and let them make the mechanics and world based on the budget they get.
Suits are not a bad thing as long as they do what they are good at, but leave the game design to the game designers.
I myself am a toolmaker, I code and run machines to make parts that an engineer draws. The engineer makes an excellent work but if we switch or if he starts to micromanage what I do it would all turn to crap.
Shoemaker, stay at your last.
I don't think there are many "Suits" in the Indy scene, though. Those usually don't show up until later, as the company grows
- 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
^
This guy gets it.
Mythic actually did start out as a relatively small studio. And grew with the success of DAoC, only to be devoured by EA. RIP.
SOE on the other hand, is a bit of an outlier for this topic. SOE is notoriously a company that makes a good games, with some really interesting / innovative game mechanics / designs. And, without fail, they almost always ruin those games with horrible last-minute business decisions. I.E. Smeddly Greed is a common joke amongst the players.
They aren't afraid of taking risks, but they usually overcompensate for that w/ a fairly overaggressive cashshop.
The argument is kind of moot. Nothing is technically a business, until there's a market for it and people find a way to profit off of it. At that point anything can be considered a business. Necessities, luxuries, entertainment, education, it doesn't matter.
That said, creativity is definitely symbiotic with risk. You need to take risks to do something creative. Being creative means taking a risk on something unknown, because you believe you can make something amazing. This goes beyond just art, and also applies to things like science / inventions / etc. You cannot have innovation without risk, and creativity is all about innovation. Trying new things, and doing things in new and interesting ways.
Which is ironic, because narfuss says this and contradicts it at the same time. Bottom line, business encourages stability. Business looks to find the known (a formula) to engineer success / profit.This is where you get companies like EA. Such practices are at complete odds with the creative process. You can't embrace risky experimentation by adhering to a predefined formula. And we see the problems w/ doing so all over the place, from Movies & TV, to the music industry, and now games. Just as we see the benefits of taking those risks all over, from the MMO, to self-managed bands, to netflix.
(btw, Lone Ranger, & John Carter are horrible examples of risky movies)
Anyway, while out shopping, I had another thought on this. Most studios (where "suits" reside) do not have one and only one game in its stable. Thinking that any one game needs to pay the rent, expenses, and further development is really a rare case, these days, thanks to EA et al buying successful smaller studios up
- 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
When I wrote OP, I neglected to consider things I discussed at the end of page 4. heh
I would argue cloning WoW has become risky as everyone groans at the thought of yet another one.
I can think of 2 but I'd classify them as scammers who aren't really building anything and just taking money.
Edit: Wannabe suits with microscopic budgets and very few to order around. They mistook their idiocy for talent.
You seem to be under the impression that making a game to make money wasn't their main plan. Maybe you're right. I think get the feeling it was a big part of it, though. Who knows. And Mythic could hardly be considered a 'big house' when it had a payroll of two dozen, no? And do we really want to go into the whole Origin/EA thing?
Who knows what UO2, Privateer Online or Harry Potter Online could have been, right?
Then there's also the matter of whether or not those MMOs were good or if we've just got our rose-tinted goggles on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
The "suits" are not the people who make it to a "higher level". This idea is really exactly the problem. Many "suits" are in no way more successful than many devs.
I don't really consider Brian Fargo at InXile a "suit" even though we was responsible for securing funding in various ways for Wasteland 2. Fargo was a quite successful professional dev/producer etc. Many of the people he was pitching too were actuall LESS accomplished. They may have been in charge of funding disbursement, but they were not on a "higher level" in anyway. They merely had a cock block on potential resources.
The "suits" were the idiots who wouldn't listen to his pitch because old-school RPGs are just not "the in thing" and failed to capitalize on what has proven to be a money making opportunity.
Fargo, for the most part, delivered on his word roughly at budget and not too delayed (which is fine for a majorly large RPG, which is quite complex). He displayed competent and decently trustworthy management. This does not make him a "suit" just because we was wearing a CEO or manager hat.
Many of the best managers are not "suits". Many of the best managers are in fact experts at not allowing "suits" to invariably ruin things. At least in larger outfits.
This doesn't mean that things like marketing and advertising etc are not important. Of course they are. But if you have a guy with a marketing degree with the power to override or change scope on your dev manager then you are 9/10 times going to see a clusterfuck. Its like having a chimp being able to control what Einstein should be researching. Again that doesn't mean you ignore marketing or that there shouldn't be compromises for marketing/advertising concerns.
Anyone who thinks that some Pres or VP of marketing or accounts is on a "higher level" than a guy with multiple profitable games produced over a 20 year career is basically living in la la land. Doesn't mean that really good producer/dev always knows what will make money, but the idea that those "suits" are on a "higher level" is risable.
This isn't a signature, you just think it is.
You keep pushing this angle, so I really am curious if you can share the data you are basing that on.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Assholes Come In All Colors
This is true be it Suits, Dev's and / or Players
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Are you speaking from experience?
I don't disagree, but the problem is that the term 'suits' is an over-generalized term to begin with. As are the terms 'evil' and 'villain'. They would be more applicable if life behaved like an anime, but it does not. Things aren't that black and white.
Getting into an argument over 'levels of success' is also moot, and a moving goal post. Objectively speaking artists will always be 'less successful' in terms of raw capital, than those who go into more traditional business ventures. An oil tycoon, store chain owner, venture capitalist / etc. is going to make even the most accomplished creatives look poor by comparison. Indeed many of the more accomplished creatives have more traditional business ventures on the side for extra revenue / stable incomes. But that's all besides the point.
The problem with this whole setup is that financing is a necessary evil when it comes to game development. The people who are the most experienced at amassing wealth are going to be the best financiers. That said, amassing wealth and designing a game are two extremely different skill sets. You wouldn't have a high-rolling stock trader telling scientists how to design a rocket he helped pay for. Then why is it somehow acceptable for him to dictate how a game is designed? It may not have the same safety issue, but the experience gap is still there. It's not even a question of intelligence or accomplishment. It's a matter of who has the right knowledge for the right jobs. Creatives often get misunderstood when it comes to topics such as these, because people often undervalue their skillsets.
- Heck, the most popular game on the market right now (league of legends) was developed by a guy making a game no one thought had any value. It wasn't until Blizzard realized that DotA actually had a serious following that they fought icefrog for the rights to the IP he did all the work for. He essentially invented his own genre, that has grown into the 'new hotness' that every company is trying to get a piece of currently.
Can you imagine if he tried to make the same game with business men questioning his decisions? DotA / League would've quite possible devolved into either another WoW-type arena game, or a starcraft clone.
True, but suppose the game designers are pissing away the money, extending deadlines all under the name of "but it will be sooooo awesome!"
And it probably will be. Right before they shut their doors because it was only awesome to a few people.
As I said in an earlier post, I know of arts organizations that had to fold because the artists always got their way.
I think the thing that is needed is either a balance between business guys and the artists or let the artists have their way as long as there are no huge financial repercussions.
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
This is where producers are supposed to come. Again, essentially the way it's supposed to work is as such:
The devs / financiers come up w/ a game plan they can agree on. The producers make sure they devs are sticking to that plan and staying on schedule. They are not making design decisions (or at least they shouldn't be).
Generally speaking it's also reasonable to expect things to go longer (over-budget), for people w/ any sort of experience in this field). As such it's not uncommon for those financing to factor this into their original agree (a buffer, so to speak), so thinks aren't screwed if / when things go a few days, etc. beyond schedule.
- If a dev is incompetent to the point where it looks like they can't deliver on a project, a few things happen. Either the project is pulled, and given to a more competent team. Or, the project is canned entirely (and the financiers cut their losses). While this can suck to the people funding the project, there are a few things to keep inmind:
1) Devs that do this repeatedly do develop a reputation. They don't tend to last long.
2) There is a known risk involved w/ dealing in this industry. Anyone trying to invest money into a project without doing their homework is just asking for trouble. Just like stocks, if you invest into something you know nothing about, you are asking to lose your money.
Not true at all.
The quality of console games has gone up over the past decade while MMO's have stagnated. Why is this? Because console devs still care about the end product. It's evident MMO devs are just in it for the paycheck, with little regard for the quality of their work. Proven by the fact almost every MMO after WoW has been a lazy copy or 1 month wonder.
It's strange because MMO's have the biggest payout for longevity and yet none of them are built to last.
Consoles vs. MMOs is another topic entirely.
If you think that MMO devs don't care about their projects, you are very much mistaken. As for the quality of games between the two, keep this in mind. There are multiple times more console games being made, than there are MMOs. This is primarily because of how expensive it is to make an MMO.
Not just financially, but the manpower involved as well. Why do MMOs often seem sub par to single player games? For the following reasons:
1) When you make an MMO, it's like making a handful of games simultaneously, and they all have to function together within the same space. When you make a single-player game all of your efforts can go into a smaller number of aspects. You can focus on making a few things really well, rather than dozens of things average.
2) MMOs are a LOT more risky than console games. Not only are they more expensive, but you have a harder time dealing w/ bugs (there are a lot more variables to consider when dealing w/ many different pc configurations); in addition to this they take longer to make. Which means you have to wait longer to see results. If a console game doesn't do well you know relatively quick (within a couple years) during which time you can learn from that for the next project. With an MMO you can be working on that one project for half a decade + before you see the final result.
- Simply put, it's a lot easier to take risks, and to polish a console game. With how costly MMOs are it's a lot harder to get people on board with a project that's trying to take too many risks. Which often translates into either less funding / a rushed product, or a project in which a businessman is dictating design decisions to help guarantee a return on investment.
That said I wouldn't call the MMO genre stagnant yet. The AAA MMOs, maybe, but there are a lot of options across every genre atm. We have more games to choose from than we ever had before. MMOs are changing, and the original MMOs that pioneered the genre are probably a thing of the past. Instead what we are seeing is a merging of MMOs and other forms of online multiplayer gameplay.
"Suits" are always the villains. Corporate-fascism is murdering our Democracy and should be fought to the last gasp of the last fighter.