Originally posted by Scot But they do have to do that sometimes. What do you think they live on for two years while they develop a game and have no income? KS may be enough for some but certainly not all. They have in the past had to mortgage their houses to make a game.
When you live off your savings while working on the game, it is like taking a break off from your job and go travelling around the world. That is still at the level of hobby.
Mortages, loans, investing all your savings, etc. that is when you actually put anything at stake and that is very rare. You can no longer just stop working on your game, get a job and go on with your life as if you get back from your marvelous world tour holidays. You will have to face significant consequences and loss.
Indies mostly work on the stuff part time or just use their savings, but they still put nothing notable at stake.
It is not about trust, it is about flawed reasoning you present. The pressure of 50k USD and 50M USD invested is hell a lot of a difference and it is a no brainer it will significantly affect your game design decisions because final product isn't dependent whether you like it but your customers.
And there is no need to pretend that some arbitrary "corporation culture" has anything to do with it, it is only about the money.
Originally posted by Dexter2010Right, it's easier to want to be 100% risky and creative with other people's money. Ks and the like have little to no repercussion for not delivering. Fail? Oh well! "I need to take my time and get paid for it!"
Precisely!
Kickstarter is an aburd concept that makes you obliged to purchase a product, regardless whether you like it or not.
Right, it's easier to want to be 100% risky and creative with other people's money. Ks and the like have little to no repercussion for not delivering. Fail? Oh well! "I need to take my time and get paid for it!"
Precisely!
People do not understand that it is the pressure of invested money that force developers to make games people want instead of making something for their own amusement, because that is the only way how to get your investment back.
What "artist" wouldn't milk funds forever? They're like alchemists of old. Without business pushers, projects would reek of self indulgence.
"I wanna make my dream game cause my ideas are flawless, and people undoubtedly like what I like!"
Right, it's easier to want to be 100% risky and creative with other people's money. Ks and the like have little to no repercussion for not delivering. Fail? Oh well! "I need to take my time and get paid for it!"
Precisely!
People do not understand that it is the pressure of invested money that force developers to make games people want instead of making something for their own amusement, because that is the only way how to get your investment back.
What "artist" wouldn't milk funds forever? They're like alchemists of old. Without business pushers, projects would reek of self indulgence.
"I wanna make my dream game cause my ideas are flawless, and people undoubtedly like what I like!"
I have concerns about KS myself, it is like pre-paying for a game from a company. I certainly do not see indies as some sort of faultless solution to issues in gaming.
Originally posted by Scot That's what you have in gaming too, if great games could be produced by two guys in a basement
That is the point, they no longer can.As the company grows, entirely new needs arise and centralized control over the resources must take in place otherwise it becomes just one huge mess.Sure, some efficiency will be lost due company size but saying that executives feed on executives who in turn feed on others and administration leads to a self sustaining bureaucracy is just clueless.
I tried Minecraft. Not a fan of it. Was that not 1 guy working on his own? Hugely successful game.
I do enjoy playing Game Dev Tycoon every now and again. 2 brothers created, marketed, and support that game. Fun game for me. I do not know how successful. Their marketing was genius: The piracy message included for pirated copies of their game.
Point is: It CAN be done. Today.
- 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 discussion is better framed in terms of the entertainment industry. It is not just gaming that has had suits take over. Look at the way suits in broadcasters are blamed for the lack of innovation and risk taking in TV programmes.
and yet this is the golden age of TV.
We have game of thrones, house of cards, orange is the new black, penny dreadful, flash, arrow, and many many good shows.
Not to mention GoT is very expensive ($50-60M for a 10 episode season) and was a huge risk when it started (by now, of course is a no brainer).
You think expensive and great shows like GoT & house of cards got produced with no suits involved?
Thank You for making everyone's point.
NONE of those show air on the Big 3, just on cable. Proving the point that the suits stifle creativity.
FYI. It's not the "GOLDEN AGE OF TV" just cause some c list actress says that doesn't make it a fact.
Most Viewed Big 3 network show MASH 125 million people USA
Most Viewed Cable show College Championship 1/12/2015 33 million people USA 4 times less people
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Originally posted by Gaendric Without the suits you wouldn't get AAA MMORPGs with more innovation, you would get almost no AAA quality MMORPGs at all. (you'd probably see some successfully crowdfunded midsize budget ones though)
Or you focus on more innovative small budget games, that market ofcourse already exists.
"Suits" do not allow innovation. Innovation is risk and they do not want any amount of risk involved, especially triple A studios.
That *is* obviously not true. Disney took lots of risk making John Carter, Lone Ranger, Guardian of the Galaxy, ... Blizz took a big risk sink money into Titan. Borderland is a risk (hybrid shooter/RPG), Dishonored is a risk ....
there are many many more examples .. some panned out (like Guardian of the Galaxy), some don't.
Many times I go back to repeat older games as I enjoy them more. I always go back to play Baldur's Gate 1 and 2 sooner or later. The graphics are actually pretty good as they are more like a painting then pixel art.
If I had a choice between Diablo 1, 2, and 3 I'd still go with Diablo 1 because it had the classes, skills, music, and art I enjoyed the most. It was a low resolution pixelated game, but it still had more dark/alive. Being able to attack other players and steal their loot was a lot of fun. Meeting up and trading with people in random games was also somewhat fun. I never liked that they removed the fighter class and replaced them with the Barbarian.
I would like to go back and play Warcraft 2 again at some point. Again this is because of the atmosphere(art/music) of the game then anything else. It again had low resolution graphics, but they did a lot with what they had to bring the game to life.
That's not to say I don't like any triple AAA games today. I just don't like MMOs in general. They all seem to be made by large corporations. Grand Theft Auto V is one of the best triple AAA games I've tried playing in recent years. It doesn't seem to care what people think about it. Divinity Original SIn is a good indie game. I would prefer to start with only one character though. The whole Mass Effect Series is quite good.
If I could go back and play Everquest or Ultima Online in their orginal state (legally) I probably would. It's just not being offered anywhere.
hmm .. how does whatever you say have anything to do with companies taking risks? Yeah, i get you like the old stuff better. But that does not change the fact that companies try new things .. something they won (D3) and sometimes they lost (like John Carter the movie).
Originally posted by AlBQuirky Originally posted by Gdemami Originally posted by Scot That's what you have in gaming too, if great games could be produced by two guys in a basement
That is the point, they no longer can.
As the company grows, entirely new needs arise and centralized control over the resources must take in place otherwise it becomes just one huge mess.
Sure, some efficiency will be lost due company size but saying that executives feed on executives who in turn feed on others and administration leads to a self sustaining bureaucracy is just clueless.
I tried Minecraft. Not a fan of it. Was that not 1 guy working on his own? Hugely successful game.
I do enjoy playing Game Dev Tycoon every now and again. 2 brothers created, marketed, and support that game. Fun game for me. I do not know how successful. Their marketing was genius: The piracy message included for pirated copies of their game.
Point is: It CAN be done. Today.
Minecraft was developed by one guy as a project.
When it became really popular that one guy set up a company to run it, which has ...suits.
This discussion is better framed in terms of the entertainment industry. It is not just gaming that has had suits take over. Look at the way suits in broadcasters are blamed for the lack of innovation and risk taking in TV programmes.
and yet this is the golden age of TV.
We have game of thrones, house of cards, orange is the new black, penny dreadful, flash, arrow, and many many good shows.
Not to mention GoT is very expensive ($50-60M for a 10 episode season) and was a huge risk when it started (by now, of course is a no brainer).
You think expensive and great shows like GoT & house of cards got produced with no suits involved?
Thank You for making everyone's point.
NONE of those show air on the Big 3, just on cable. Proving the point that the suits stifle creativity.
FYI. It's not the "GOLDEN AGE OF TV" just cause some c list actress says that doesn't make it a fact.
Most Viewed Big 3 network show MASH 125 million people USA
Most Viewed Cable show College Championship 1/12/2015 33 million people USA 4 times less people
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
This discussion is better framed in terms of the entertainment industry. It is not just gaming that has had suits take over. Look at the way suits in broadcasters are blamed for the lack of innovation and risk taking in TV programmes.
and yet this is the golden age of TV.
We have game of thrones, house of cards, orange is the new black, penny dreadful, flash, arrow, and many many good shows.
Not to mention GoT is very expensive ($50-60M for a 10 episode season) and was a huge risk when it started (by now, of course is a no brainer).
You think expensive and great shows like GoT & house of cards got produced with no suits involved?
Thank You for making everyone's point.
NONE of those show air on the Big 3, just on cable. Proving the point that the suits stifle creativity.
FYI. It's not the "GOLDEN AGE OF TV" just cause some c list actress says that doesn't make it a fact.
Most Viewed Big 3 network show MASH 125 million people USA
Most Viewed Cable show College Championship 1/12/2015 33 million people USA 4 times less people
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
Those programs aren't created by bevy of artists musing creatively in a garden. They are constructed from extensive research and data on viewing habits, trends, demographics, program times, and other factors. That it seems to you they are 'putting entertainment before corporate' just means that the research and data has been spot 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 Scot That's what you have in gaming too, if great games could be produced by two guys in a basement
That is the point, they no longer can.As the company grows, entirely new needs arise and centralized control over the resources must take in place otherwise it becomes just one huge mess.Sure, some efficiency will be lost due company size but saying that executives feed on executives who in turn feed on others and administration leads to a self sustaining bureaucracy is just clueless.
I tried Minecraft. Not a fan of it. Was that not 1 guy working on his own? Hugely successful game.I do enjoy playing Game Dev Tycoon every now and again. 2 brothers created, marketed, and support that game. Fun game for me. I do not know how successful. Their marketing was genius: The piracy message included for pirated copies of their game.Point is: It CAN be done. Today.
Minecraft was developed by one guy as a project.When it became really popular that one guy set up a company to run it, which has ...suits.So, what Gdemami said is correct.
No, what he said (underlined and italicized) is false. He said a guy in a garage can NO LONGER create a video game. I showed that they can, and do... still.
Yes, afterwards, as their game grows, they will hire more people. "Suits" will not show up until EA buys them out, ie: HUGE company
Bioware is nifty example I'll use here. 2 Doctors that enjoyed video games decided to create some RPGs. Their games were usually pretty good. They grew. They hired more people. They grew more, but the 2 Doctors were still in charge. THEN, EA showed up and bought them out. Now, Bioware is run by "suits" (EA) and their games show it, in my opinion.
- 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 someone works against the interest of another they are an antagonist. That is the core definition. To call them a villain is simply applying positional morals against the opposition. Strip that away and they are still antagonists.
Do not confuse the 2 and diminish the reason why the contested view points exist. The history of video games (especially mmos) is ripe with corporate operations conflicting with consumer views and has direct correlations with game development and success over the years. One cannot dispute this and cannot diminish the conflicts that exist.
This issue is part of a global problem of companies running their business by profit margins instead of by simple supply and demand regardless of market percentage. Profit margin management by definition strips consumer choice from the market. You are devalued by being part of a lower margin. When the voice of the consumer is reduced conflict of interest is created. This is a major concern with our market society today that goes far beyond gaming but mmo development over 1.5 decades is an amazing example to investigate this phenomenon. It is the direct reason why alternate indie development has sprung up recently. It exists because game corporations have stripped lower margins from their development ... that means YOU old school mmo players.
I have said this for years: Old school mmo players have been abandoned by the industry. This is the fundamental reason behind the state of mmos today and entirely the reason behind the recent surge of indie development.
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
nah .. they only seem so because they produce stuff that you like.
How about netflix then? They are anything BUT small. The thread is about suits, not whether they are creative. This shows exactly that a company *can* still be creative and produces good stuff with suits.
In fact, you cannot do it without suits, if the production is big.
At least you need to admit that there are good suits ... like those who provide enough investment for GoT, HoC and so on and so forth.
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
nah .. they only seem so because they produce stuff that you like.
How about netflix then? They are anything BUT small. The thread is about suits, not whether they are creative. This shows exactly that a company *can* still be creative and produces good stuff with suits.
In fact, you cannot do it without suits, if the production is big.
At least you need to admit that there are good suits ... like those who provide enough investment for GoT, HoC and so on and so forth.
I do keep saying I have nothing against suits, its the culture not the man. Business know how is of course needed, this is about balance and the bottom line should not be should not be the sole concern of a creative studio. As to the idea of Loktofeit that the smaller cable companies did better market research, come on, do you really think that? They were more prepared to take a risk and it paid of.
And that list was compiled by you nari, so it is stuff you like, not me.
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
nah .. they only seem so because they produce stuff that you like.
How about netflix then? They are anything BUT small. The thread is about suits, not whether they are creative. This shows exactly that a company *can* still be creative and produces good stuff with suits.
In fact, you cannot do it without suits, if the production is big.
At least you need to admit that there are good suits ... like those who provide enough investment for GoT, HoC and so on and so forth.
I do keep saying I have nothing against suits, its the culture not the man. Business know how is of course needed, this is about balance and the bottom line should not be should not be the sole concern of a creative studio. As to the idea of Loktofeit that the smaller cable companies did better market research, come do you really think that? They were more prepaid to take a risk and it paid of.
And that list was compiled by you nari, so it is stuff you like, not me.
True .. but shows like GoT is universally acclaimed, and viewed as creative and novel by many (critics too). Are you telling me that you disagree that my list shows big corporations like HBO & Netflix can be creative?
The only point i make is that HBO is not going to be where it is .. nor you will have shows like GoT or HoC, without the suits.
In fact, HBO .. this "small" cable company is BIGGER than EA ($3.84B revenue http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EA), the poster child of evil corporation.
Originally posted by mmorobo It's the lack of education about Other Peoples Money. Mostly the goverment fails on this hard, but in this conversation it's the creative / artsy / consumer types that fail to understand. You only get a say so when its your money or time. You agree to work for someone else or take their money there will be strings attached!
I don't think this will go down well but here goes "It is the workers that control the means of production"
Don't flame me too hard.
Seriously as best as I can tell and as some have already said it's not black and white. You can't blame the suits, the devs or the players. If you know enough about a specific circumstance than maybe you could for that circumstance but it's unlikely to hold up to scrutiny in all circumstances.
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
nah .. they only seem so because they produce stuff that you like.
How about netflix then? They are anything BUT small. The thread is about suits, not whether they are creative. This shows exactly that a company *can* still be creative and produces good stuff with suits.
In fact, you cannot do it without suits, if the production is big.
At least you need to admit that there are good suits ... like those who provide enough investment for GoT, HoC and so on and so forth.
I do keep saying I have nothing against suits, its the culture not the man. Business know how is of course needed, this is about balance and the bottom line should not be should not be the sole concern of a creative studio. As to the idea of Loktofeit that the smaller cable companies did better market research, come do you really think that? They were more prepaid to take a risk and it paid of.
And that list was compiled by you nari, so it is stuff you like, not me.
True .. but shows like GoT is universally acclaimed, and viewed as creative and novel by many (critics too). Are you telling me that you disagree that my list shows big corporations like HBO & Netflix can be creative?
The only point i make is that HBO is not going to be where it is .. nor you will have shows like GoT or HoC, without the suits.
In fact, HBO .. this "small" cable company is BIGGER than EA ($3.84B revenue http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EA), the poster child of evil corporation.
GoT example? No it doesn't show me that suits can be creative and it doesn't show me that they can not. It shows me that the writer Martin was creative, that various directors, actors, the producer and all the other creative people I am neglecting can use their talent to transform it into something that translate well on a screen. Now the series is great and credit to HBO for spending alot of money to make a show out of a series of books that had a cult following but it's not like the suits are the ones with the necessary talent/creativity to make the show successful. They may have managed it well, they may have hired some creative people who hired the rest of the creative people but managing something in this context is an entirely different issue to being creative.
GoT example? No it doesn't show me that suits can be creative and it doesn't show me that they can not. It shows me that the writer Martin was creative, that various directors, actors, the producer and all the other creative people I am neglecting can use their talent to transform it into something that translate well on a screen. Now the series is great and credit to HBO for spending alot of money to make a show out of a series of books that had a cult following but it's not like the suits are the ones with the necessary talent/creativity to make the show successful. They may have managed it well, they may have hired some creative people who hired the rest of the creative people but managing something in this context is an entirely different issue to being creative.
Read carefully.
I did not say the suits are creative. I said GoT would not have been made without the suits. If the suits did not raise the money, run the business, hire the right creative people, and do a thousand other business things, there would have been no GoT.
Again, the point is that there will be no good EXPENSIVE entertainment products if not for the suits ... and they don't even need to be creative.
GoT example? No it doesn't show me that suits can be creative and it doesn't show me that they can not. It shows me that the writer Martin was creative, that various directors, actors, the producer and all the other creative people I am neglecting can use their talent to transform it into something that translate well on a screen. Now the series is great and credit to HBO for spending alot of money to make a show out of a series of books that had a cult following but it's not like the suits are the ones with the necessary talent/creativity to make the show successful. They may have managed it well, they may have hired some creative people who hired the rest of the creative people but managing something in this context is an entirely different issue to being creative.
Read carefully.
I did not say the suits are creative. I said GoT would not have been made without the suits. If the suits did not raise the money, run the business, hire the right creative people, and do a thousand other business things, there would have been no GoT.
Again, the point is that there will be no good EXPENSIVE entertainment products if not for the suits ... and they don't even need to be creative.
Well I disagree that it couldn't have been made without suits. Lets go back to the proper context and the gaming industry for an example. Look at how much money Roberts has raised via crowdfunding. As a creative experienced game developer he has managed to cut the suits out. Now back to your tangent I wouldn't expect people to crowd fund GoT to the extent HBO has backed it but even so the suits definitely aren't a requirement that is set in stone and I think the creative talent itself is far more important. Ofcourse money helps round that talent up but as all of this crowdfunding has shown us there are other ways to secure it.
Originally posted by Tamanous When someone works against the interest of another they are an antagonist. That is the core definition. To call them a villain is simply applying positional morals against the opposition. Strip that away and they are still antagonists.Do not confuse the 2 and diminish the reason why the contested view points exist. The history of video games (especially mmos) is ripe with corporate operations conflicting with consumer views and has direct correlations with game development and success over the years. One cannot dispute this and cannot diminish the conflicts that exist. This issue is part of a global problem of companies running their business by profit margins instead of by simple supply and demand regardless of market percentage. Profit margin management by definition strips consumer choice from the market. You are devalued by being part of a lower margin. When the voice of the consumer is reduced conflict of interest is created. This is a major concern with our market society today that goes far beyond gaming but mmo development over 1.5 decades is an amazing example to investigate this phenomenon. It is the direct reason why alternate indie development has sprung up recently. It exists because game corporations have stripped lower margins from their development ... that means YOU old school mmo players.I have said this for years: Old school mmo players have been abandoned by the industry. This is the fundamental reason behind the state of mmos today and entirely the reason behind the recent surge of indie development.
This was eloquently put! Well done
I do regret succumbing to my own personal dislike of the word "evil." That implies religious/moral values and usually when I read it, my mind starts to close up. "Antagonist" is a much better word.
Again, well said
- 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
Originally posted by mmorobo It's the lack of education about Other Peoples Money. Mostly the goverment fails on this hard, but in this conversation it's the creative / artsy / consumer types that fail to understand. You only get a say so when its your money or time. You agree to work for someone else or take their money there will be strings attached!
I don't think this will go down well but here goes "It is the workers that control the means of production" ;)Don't flame me too hard.Seriously as best as I can tell and as some have already said it's not black and white. You can't blame the suits, the devs or the players. If you know enough about a specific circumstance than maybe you could for that circumstance but it's unlikely to hold up to scrutiny in all circumstances.
I am unsure of your quoted line. Even unions have trouble "dictating" the means of production, ie: strikes and such. I have not experienced this philosophy myself.
There used to be an old business adage that has been long forgotten, it seems: "Make a good product or worthwhile service and consumers will reward you." (or something similar.) One of the problems with this adage is that consumers have lost their ability to think critically, believe what they are told, and lost the value of their own money. If "us consumers" started to act with some semblance of brains, we could take back control. We just can not seem to do so. So "bad" products and services get rewarded because "we" like shiny things.
Look at how well a good CGI video sells an unknown game. We gamers, as consumers, watch these videos and start to "imagine" what the game will be like, as it is not shown in the videos. But our characters are not able to cross huge chasms on a rope while getting shot at (like TES:O) or jump meters through the air and land a massive overhand attack on our opponents (like too many games to single out one). Our characters do not look anything like the CGI models shown. Still, we buy game after game, because we "imagine" a great game, getting caught up in the emotion those videos sometimes evoke.
What I am long-windedly saying is that in order for capitalism to work (suits), it needs the check of consumer intelligence, which is failing spectacularly right now, especially in the video game market. We consumers have given up all control.
- 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
Originally posted by mmoroboIt's the lack of education about Other Peoples Money. Mostly the goverment fails on this hard, but in this conversation it's the creative / artsy / consumer types that fail to understand. You only get a say so when its your money or time. You agree to work for someone else or take their money there will be strings attached!
I don't think this will go down well but here goes "It is the workers that control the means of production" Don't flame me too hard.Seriously as best as I can tell and as some have already said it's not black and white. You can't blame the suits, the devs or the players. If you know enough about a specific circumstance than maybe you could for that circumstance but it's unlikely to hold up to scrutiny in all circumstances.
I am unsure of your quoted line. Even unions have trouble "dictating" the means of production, ie: strikes and such. I have not experienced this philosophy myself.There used to be an old business adage that has been long forgotten, it seems: "Make a good product or worthwhile service and consumers will reward you." (or something similar.) One of the problems with this adage is that consumers have lost their ability to think critically, believe what they are told, and lost the value of their own money. If "us consumers" started to act with some semblance of brains, we could take back control. We just can not seem to do so. So "bad" products and services get rewarded because "we" like shiny things.Look at how well a good CGI video sells an unknown game. We gamers, as consumers, watch these videos and start to "imagine" what the game will be like, as it is not shown in the videos. But our characters are not able to cross huge chasms on a rope while getting shot at (like TES:O) or jump meters through the air and land a massive overhand attack on our opponents (like too many games to single out one). Our characters do not look anything like the CGI models shown. Still, we buy game after game, because we "imagine" a great game, getting caught up in the emotion those videos sometimes evoke.What I am long-windedly saying is that in order for capitalism to work (suits), it needs the check of consumer intelligence, which is failing spectacularly right now, especially in the video game market. We consumers have given up all control.
It's just a way of saying that the real power/skill to produce is via the workers. Look at the indie scene in game development. They can make the games because they have the skill. Some CEO who can't code or do art can't make the game, they need to rely on others. Similar statements are used as a rallying cry for trade unions. Trade unions can ofcourse cause entire industries to grind to a stand still but it's often not in their interest to do so because they are hurting the industry which employees their members. Anyway it was a bit off topic.
As for your statement about there needing to be checks for "consumer intelligence" I wrote this in another thread but think it's relevant here so I'll paste it in quotes.
"Whilst it is possible to blame the millions of consumers I would much rather 1.more sensible and accountable marketing practices be used. 2. To have media independent of advertising things which they are reporting on. 3. It would also be good if people stopped taking it upon themselves (or maybe from someone elses authority) to hype (excessively promote) games in forums and so on. 4. To expand on 3, if someone had financial links to that which they promote, it would be good if they exercised some integrity and disclosed it in the form of a signature or something of that nature.
PS Now 3 might seem like I am still blaming the consumer but I'm not. It is the lack of 1,2 and 4 that I think creates the problem in the first place."
Originally posted by AlBQuirky One of the problems with this adage is that consumers have lost their ability to think critically,
That applies specifically to you with your invalid, inductive reasoning you propose there.
"Make a good product or worthwhile service and consumers will reward you." still applies, it is just not worthwile to YOU. Which is fine, game producers are not obliged to please and make games for everyone.
Your entire paragrapph and the fallacy it consists sums up the issue of entire thread - personal bias being falsely passed as general problem.
The industry isn't ruined by suits because you do not like what they produce.
Comments
When you live off your savings while working on the game, it is like taking a break off from your job and go travelling around the world. That is still at the level of hobby.
Mortages, loans, investing all your savings, etc. that is when you actually put anything at stake and that is very rare. You can no longer just stop working on your game, get a job and go on with your life as if you get back from your marvelous world tour holidays. You will have to face significant consequences and loss.
Indies mostly work on the stuff part time or just use their savings, but they still put nothing notable at stake.
It is not about trust, it is about flawed reasoning you present. The pressure of 50k USD and 50M USD invested is hell a lot of a difference and it is a no brainer it will significantly affect your game design decisions because final product isn't dependent whether you like it but your customers.
And there is no need to pretend that some arbitrary "corporation culture" has anything to do with it, it is only about the money.
Precisely!
Kickstarter is an aburd concept that makes you obliged to purchase a product, regardless whether you like it or not.
What "artist" wouldn't milk funds forever? They're like alchemists of old. Without business pushers, projects would reek of self indulgence.
"I wanna make my dream game cause my ideas are flawless, and people undoubtedly like what I like!"
I have concerns about KS myself, it is like pre-paying for a game from a company. I certainly do not see indies as some sort of faultless solution to issues in gaming.
I do enjoy playing Game Dev Tycoon every now and again. 2 brothers created, marketed, and support that game. Fun game for me. I do not know how successful. Their marketing was genius: The piracy message included for pirated copies of their game.
Point is: It CAN be done. Today.
- 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
Are you kidding me? Cable has no suits? HBO has no suits? Showtime has no suits?
You know that GoT costs like $50-$60M a season right? Tell me how that can be managed, without suits?
hmm .. how does whatever you say have anything to do with companies taking risks? Yeah, i get you like the old stuff better. But that does not change the fact that companies try new things .. something they won (D3) and sometimes they lost (like John Carter the movie).
As the company grows, entirely new needs arise and centralized control over the resources must take in place otherwise it becomes just one huge mess.
Sure, some efficiency will be lost due company size but saying that executives feed on executives who in turn feed on others and administration leads to a self sustaining bureaucracy is just clueless.
I tried Minecraft. Not a fan of it. Was that not 1 guy working on his own? Hugely successful game.
I do enjoy playing Game Dev Tycoon every now and again. 2 brothers created, marketed, and support that game. Fun game for me. I do not know how successful. Their marketing was genius: The piracy message included for pirated copies of their game.
Point is: It CAN be done. Today.
Minecraft was developed by one guy as a project.
When it became really popular that one guy set up a company to run it, which has ...suits.
So, what Gdemami said is correct.
Of course they do, but those channels seem to be putting entertainment before corporate far more often. They are smaller which may by the reason. But that's not what really matters, if any entertainment company no matter how big or small puts creativity before corporate ethos it gets my vote.
Those programs aren't created by bevy of artists musing creatively in a garden. They are constructed from extensive research and data on viewing habits, trends, demographics, program times, and other factors. That it seems to you they are 'putting entertainment before corporate' just means that the research and data has been spot 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
Yes, afterwards, as their game grows, they will hire more people. "Suits" will not show up until EA buys them out, ie: HUGE company
Bioware is nifty example I'll use here. 2 Doctors that enjoyed video games decided to create some RPGs. Their games were usually pretty good. They grew. They hired more people. They grew more, but the 2 Doctors were still in charge. THEN, EA showed up and bought them out. Now, Bioware is run by "suits" (EA) and their games show it, in my opinion.
- 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 someone works against the interest of another they are an antagonist. That is the core definition. To call them a villain is simply applying positional morals against the opposition. Strip that away and they are still antagonists.
Do not confuse the 2 and diminish the reason why the contested view points exist. The history of video games (especially mmos) is ripe with corporate operations conflicting with consumer views and has direct correlations with game development and success over the years. One cannot dispute this and cannot diminish the conflicts that exist.
This issue is part of a global problem of companies running their business by profit margins instead of by simple supply and demand regardless of market percentage. Profit margin management by definition strips consumer choice from the market. You are devalued by being part of a lower margin. When the voice of the consumer is reduced conflict of interest is created. This is a major concern with our market society today that goes far beyond gaming but mmo development over 1.5 decades is an amazing example to investigate this phenomenon. It is the direct reason why alternate indie development has sprung up recently. It exists because game corporations have stripped lower margins from their development ... that means YOU old school mmo players.
I have said this for years: Old school mmo players have been abandoned by the industry. This is the fundamental reason behind the state of mmos today and entirely the reason behind the recent surge of indie development.
You stay sassy!
nah .. they only seem so because they produce stuff that you like.
How about netflix then? They are anything BUT small. The thread is about suits, not whether they are creative. This shows exactly that a company *can* still be creative and produces good stuff with suits.
In fact, you cannot do it without suits, if the production is big.
At least you need to admit that there are good suits ... like those who provide enough investment for GoT, HoC and so on and so forth.
I do keep saying I have nothing against suits, its the culture not the man. Business know how is of course needed, this is about balance and the bottom line should not be should not be the sole concern of a creative studio. As to the idea of Loktofeit that the smaller cable companies did better market research, come on, do you really think that? They were more prepared to take a risk and it paid of.
And that list was compiled by you nari, so it is stuff you like, not me.
If you've given more money to large MMOs than small ones, you've told the industry you prefer what "the suits" produce.
And as others have noted, only "the suits" are capable of producing AAA high-quality MMOs.
I've long pointed out the inherent futility of wanting something that's simultaneously (a) a genre that requires a giant investment, and (b) indie.
"What is truly revealing is his implication that believing something to be true is the same as it being true. [continue]" -John Oliver
if you have no money to finish , dont start
realy , all this alpha/beta most one make game die before got release
but i think its new model for industry support by us
True .. but shows like GoT is universally acclaimed, and viewed as creative and novel by many (critics too). Are you telling me that you disagree that my list shows big corporations like HBO & Netflix can be creative?
None of these institutions you talk about has no suits. And when you say "smaller" ... HBO is still at $4.9B company (in 2013, http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-02-05/hbo-finally-reveals-profit-numbers-dot-take-that-netflix).
The only point i make is that HBO is not going to be where it is .. nor you will have shows like GoT or HoC, without the suits.
In fact, HBO .. this "small" cable company is BIGGER than EA ($3.84B revenue http://finance.yahoo.com/q/ks?s=EA), the poster child of evil corporation.
I don't think this will go down well but here goes "It is the workers that control the means of production"
Don't flame me too hard.
Seriously as best as I can tell and as some have already said it's not black and white. You can't blame the suits, the devs or the players. If you know enough about a specific circumstance than maybe you could for that circumstance but it's unlikely to hold up to scrutiny in all circumstances.
GoT example? No it doesn't show me that suits can be creative and it doesn't show me that they can not. It shows me that the writer Martin was creative, that various directors, actors, the producer and all the other creative people I am neglecting can use their talent to transform it into something that translate well on a screen. Now the series is great and credit to HBO for spending alot of money to make a show out of a series of books that had a cult following but it's not like the suits are the ones with the necessary talent/creativity to make the show successful. They may have managed it well, they may have hired some creative people who hired the rest of the creative people but managing something in this context is an entirely different issue to being creative.
Read carefully.
I did not say the suits are creative. I said GoT would not have been made without the suits. If the suits did not raise the money, run the business, hire the right creative people, and do a thousand other business things, there would have been no GoT.
Again, the point is that there will be no good EXPENSIVE entertainment products if not for the suits ... and they don't even need to be creative.
Well I disagree that it couldn't have been made without suits. Lets go back to the proper context and the gaming industry for an example. Look at how much money Roberts has raised via crowdfunding. As a creative experienced game developer he has managed to cut the suits out. Now back to your tangent I wouldn't expect people to crowd fund GoT to the extent HBO has backed it but even so the suits definitely aren't a requirement that is set in stone and I think the creative talent itself is far more important. Ofcourse money helps round that talent up but as all of this crowdfunding has shown us there are other ways to secure it.
I do regret succumbing to my own personal dislike of the word "evil." That implies religious/moral values and usually when I read it, my mind starts to close up. "Antagonist" is a much better word.
Again, well said
- 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 used to be an old business adage that has been long forgotten, it seems: "Make a good product or worthwhile service and consumers will reward you." (or something similar.) One of the problems with this adage is that consumers have lost their ability to think critically, believe what they are told, and lost the value of their own money. If "us consumers" started to act with some semblance of brains, we could take back control. We just can not seem to do so. So "bad" products and services get rewarded because "we" like shiny things.
Look at how well a good CGI video sells an unknown game. We gamers, as consumers, watch these videos and start to "imagine" what the game will be like, as it is not shown in the videos. But our characters are not able to cross huge chasms on a rope while getting shot at (like TES:O) or jump meters through the air and land a massive overhand attack on our opponents (like too many games to single out one). Our characters do not look anything like the CGI models shown. Still, we buy game after game, because we "imagine" a great game, getting caught up in the emotion those videos sometimes evoke.
What I am long-windedly saying is that in order for capitalism to work (suits), it needs the check of consumer intelligence, which is failing spectacularly right now, especially in the video game market. We consumers have given up all control.
- 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
It's just a way of saying that the real power/skill to produce is via the workers. Look at the indie scene in game development. They can make the games because they have the skill. Some CEO who can't code or do art can't make the game, they need to rely on others. Similar statements are used as a rallying cry for trade unions. Trade unions can ofcourse cause entire industries to grind to a stand still but it's often not in their interest to do so because they are hurting the industry which employees their members. Anyway it was a bit off topic.
As for your statement about there needing to be checks for "consumer intelligence" I wrote this in another thread but think it's relevant here so I'll paste it in quotes.
"Whilst it is possible to blame the millions of consumers I would much rather
1.more sensible and accountable marketing practices be used.
2. To have media independent of advertising things which they are reporting on.
3. It would also be good if people stopped taking it upon themselves (or maybe from someone elses authority) to hype (excessively promote) games in forums and so on.
4. To expand on 3, if someone had financial links to that which they promote, it would be good if they exercised some integrity and disclosed it in the form of a signature or something of that nature.
PS
Now 3 might seem like I am still blaming the consumer but I'm not. It is the lack of 1,2 and 4 that I think creates the problem in the first place."
That applies specifically to you with your invalid, inductive reasoning you propose there.
"Make a good product or worthwhile service and consumers will reward you." still applies, it is just not worthwile to YOU. Which is fine, game producers are not obliged to please and make games for everyone.
Your entire paragrapph and the fallacy it consists sums up the issue of entire thread - personal bias being falsely passed as general problem.
The industry isn't ruined by suits because you do not like what they produce.