Support NeoGAF

[Dalthien]

Well, just off the top of my head, a movie will come out in the theaters, see a DVD release, come out on digital distribution channels (video on demand, PS3/360 downloads, etc.), get shown on premium movie channels (HBO, Stars, etc.), come out for major network television, and finally come to the smaller specialized channels like cable. And while each iteration of the release sees diminishing returns compared to the first two, the movie still does make money each time the movie is redistributed to the next medium down the list.

Games, on the other hand, will see a retail release (which unless you're a Mega-franchise or published by Nintendo, typically means the bulk of your sales will come within a month or three and then drop off notably) and if they're lucky maybe a digital re-relase down the line (a la XBLA classics or the virtual console). That's really all they get.

Nah - there are opportunities there for publishers, they just don't make the efforts to keep their back catalogs viable.

First off, let's not pretend that the cable and satellite deals are a big source of revenue for most movies. For the popular, high-demand films - sure. But most stuff that got ignored in the theater or went straight to DVD - they usually make very little on digital distribution deals, and they often get bundled into package deals with other no-name films from the studio because the films have no value by themselves.

It's not all that different for games. There are plenty of opportunities for the popular games to be resold over and over again. Look at Nintendo with Super Mario 64. Sold shitloads on the N64. Sold shitloads again on the DS. Sold a bunch again on the VC. Or Super Mario Bros. on the NES, then packaged again on the SNES, GBA, VC, etc. Or Capcom with the repackaging of Monster Hunter. Or Sony with repackaging God of War 1+2. Or all of the zillion compilation discs from Sega, Namco, SNK, etc. And then there are now the VC, XBLA, PSN opportunities for releasing the same games all over again. Not to mention mobile opportunities such as the iPhone as well now.

There are all kinds of opportunities available. The publishers just need to take an interest in keeping their old titles viable. But sadly, most of them have opted for pumping out sequels every 12-18 months instead of nurturing their previous titles. There's a reason that Nintrendo puts such a focus on keeping evergreen titles. They will often do new advertising campaigns for titles years after release. Most other publishers have very little interest in their back catalogs. That's not the fault of the marketplace though. The opportunities are there. Most publishers just aren't interested in fostering those opportunities.

 

[tak]

Jason Rubin comes off as a jackass in these videos, specially since he cannot admit when he is wrong.

 

[Mr_Brit]

Pachter and Satterfield kept throwing example after example at him proving to him how wrong he was and he just wouldn't let go, you could tell he was getting visibly flustered near the end as he knew he was wrong and that he was starting to come off as sort of an idiot.

 

[Penguin]

Pachter and Satterfield kept throwing example after example at him proving to him how wrong he was and he just wouldn't let go, you could tell he was getting visibly flustered near the end as he knew he was wrong and that he was starting to come off as sort of an idiot.

I thought their examples were different or maybe I don't follow the industry as closely, but the dude from Capcom and Team Ninja, left to start their own development studio, I thought.

What he was saying, were people who got laid off/fired wouldn't be able to start from the top even if they had great skill.

 

[tak]

I thought their examples were different or maybe I don't follow the industry as closely, but the dude from Capcom and Team Ninja, left to start their own development studio, I thought.

What he was saying, were people who got laid off/fired wouldn't be able to start from the top even if they had great skill.

He keep shifting the goal post of his argument to fit his view.

 

[gerg]

I'd love to be proven wrong on this, but wasn't Satterfield sticking his head in the sand by saying that the number of closures and/or redundancies that happened last year was the standard fare?

Also, I don't think that, as gamers, we should only want the best games to succeed. That's not a good strategy for fostering innovation and competition.

He keep shifting the goal post of his argument to fit his view.

Is it not possible that the Pachter and Satterfield may have misrepresented it somewhat?

 

[avatar299]

Jason Rubin killed on this ep

 

[Guardian Bob]

Is Shane a regular on the show now? God, I hope not.

 

[Y2Kev]

They are nothing alike. Movies are sold as new 5 times over. Videogames, if they are lucky get one shot.

The problem with Anime isn't price, its content. Many anime DVDs are around 2 hours. Most games often have 5x as much value.

Everyone is going with this "make less games, lower the costs, etc etc " BS as if that is anything but a stop gap. Lets assume a large publisher like THQ does this, shall we? After they lay-off more than half their workforce, and allocate all their resources to 1 or 2 games a year, what happens if one fails? What happens if they aren't able to make a return to their investors? THQ will have to make sure that game is amazing, hence spending more money on one game, and increasing the risk of failure.

You all bitch about the blockbuster model, and then turn around and suggest they follow the blockbuster model more devoutly

The truth of the matter is you are going to have to pay more, and be more wise in how you spend things.

No, I don't think you've got this entirely right. The "make fewer games and reduce cost" argument doesn't naturally extend to "put all your eggs in one basket"--this is a distortion of that idea by taking it to a large extreme. Even if THQ made just two games a year and they both bombed, the idea is that it wouldn't sink their company. You can tie up reasonable amounts of capital in risky projects, and of course you can invest in more risky projects if they require less capital overall. A company like THQ could weather a bad year or two because they're not sinking everything they've got into a scarce number of products. Regardless, though, this isn't really the crux of the argument.

It's completely unreasonable to even posit an environment where THQ releases "one or two" games a year. They have more franchise titles than that already, including UFC and WWE.

You're always going to have companies fail in the market, sure, but I propose that people scale costs down to where things were during the PS2 days in terms of negative costs on projects. You know, like when the industry was a net money maker instead of a net money loser. Ubisoft could afford to have BG&E fail because it wasn't a $30 million investment.

Plenty of corporations made what we'd consider "B-tier" games last generation, and they were profitable and they grew. Others failed, sure, but now there are essentially one or two third parties in the west making money. The b-tier has completely disappeared, both on PS360 and on Wii. You go big or you go broke nowadays, and lots of people are going broke.

The comment that THQ would have to compete directly with EA on titles surely has some truth to it, but we had plenty of healthy competition in the past without major difficulty. The crux here is that reducing costs would make the market much more competitive overall. Those that can be successful making blockbusters can continue to do that if they so choose, but they're also going to take on the excess risk (as you've written). I don't think that's that bad, really.

 

[Penguin]

He keep shifting the goal post of his argument to fit his view.

Maybe I need to re-watch, but it sound like he kept with the same argument. If you move about the industry after coming from a studio that closed down, even if you have several mega-hits under your belt they won't just throw a budget at you to start on the next Triple A title.

 

[avatar299]

I thought their examples were different or maybe I don't follow the industry as closely, but the dude from Capcom and Team Ninja, left to start their own development studio, I thought.

What he was saying, were people who got laid off/fired wouldn't be able to start from the top even if they had great skill.

Those were different situations and neither proved him wrong. Many members of Team Ninja left with Itagaki, and PG is largely made up of old clover studios staffers. The only examples of singular individuals being given teams and huge budgets just off name value is the guy behind SSB:B with Project Sora and Sakaguichi.

Also notice all the counter examples are from japan, which has a very different corporate structure than American teams.

 

[Divvy]

Hey GT guys, really appreciate these videos. They're really insightful.

Just one thing,

Please stop interrupting each other!

 

[StuBurns]

Shane and Jason are both unbearable people, horrid.

 

[Kaako]

Good episode. More stuff like this please GT.

 

[Y2Kev]

I didn't realize Jason talked about the vanishing of the B-tier this episode. I think that's really one of the big changes in the marketplace over the last few years.

 

[Draft]

:lol

Goddamn Kamiya-san and Itagaki-san. Is there any way for a white dude speaking English to NOT sound like a tool when using the "-san" thing.

 

[Sadist]

:lol

Goddamn Kamiya-san and Itagaki-san. Is there any way for a white dude speaking English to NOT sound like a tool when using the "-san" thing.

Yeah, was thinking the same.

I thought it was a neat episode, but Rubin was a bit pissed off at the end.

 

[avatar299]

No, I don't think you've got this entirely right. The "make fewer games and reduce cost" argument doesn't naturally extend to "put all your eggs in one basket"--this is a distortion of that idea by taking it to a large extreme. Even if THQ made just two games a year and they both bombed, the idea is that it wouldn't sink their company. You can tie up reasonable amounts of capital in risky projects, and of course you can invest in more risky projects if they require less capital overall. A company like THQ could weather a bad year or two because they're not sinking everything they've got into a scarce number of products. Regardless, though, this isn't really the crux of the argument.

It's completely unreasonable to even posit an environment where THQ releases "one or two" games a year. They have more franchise titles than that already, including UFC and WWE.

You're always going to have companies fail in the market, sure, but I propose that people scale costs down to where things were during the PS2 days in terms of negative costs on projects. You know, like when the industry was a net money maker instead of a net money loser. Ubisoft could afford to have BG&E fail because it wasn't a $30 million investment.

Plenty of corporations made what we'd consider "B-tier" games last generation, and they were profitable and they grew. Others failed, sure, but now there are essentially one or two third parties in the west making money. The b-tier has completely disappeared, both on PS360 and on Wii. You go big or you go broke nowadays, and lots of people are going broke.

The comment that THQ would have to compete directly with EA on titles surely has some truth to it, but we had plenty of healthy competition in the past without major difficulty. The crux here is that reducing costs would make the market much more competitive overall. Those that can be successful making blockbusters can continue to do that if they so choose, but they're also going to take on the excess risk (as you've written). I don't think that's that bad, really.

You're arguing as if THQ is a private company with a singular body that is carrying all the risk. These companies are leveraged on making big returns to SH. if they don't then they can't keep capital. There is no way that a studio can have multiple flops and stay in business. That isn't a sign of a healthy industry. That is a sign of malinvestments.

That is a problem people have when they talk about the PS2 generation. it was largely driven by malinvestments. Companies were given more and more capital based off the success of other companies. Much of the growth and profits we saw last gen where from venture capaitalists and investors, not profit from retail. B-tier studios were capitalized based off the success of A-tier products. This is not healthy, and it should not be what the industry looks to for the future.

The industry needs to re-capitalize based off successful smaller products and not off B-tier products that tend to fail

Edit: Also hasn't the complete indifference to outright disgust that western developers and "core" western gamers shown to the wii and DS proven that most people don't want cheaper budgetted games anyway?

 

[HK-47]

I didn't realize Jason talked about the vanishing of the B-tier this episode. I think that's really one of the big changes in the marketplace over the last few years.

Come back, B Tier!

 

[McLovin]

That whole episode seemed tense to me :lol

 

[Draft]

Daaaaaaaamn, Jason Rubin is definitely in full on monetization mode. I guess that's why he got out of game design and now... consults? Does Bonus Round? I'm not really sure.

 

[qwerty2k]

Was it just me or did the rest really not grasp what Jason was saying? They all kept acting as though if a team shut down the whole team would stick together and get another job as a whole studio :lol

 

[Y2Kev]

B-tier studios were capitalized based off the success of A-tier products.

How do you explain the continued existence and success of publishers like Atlus or NIS, who do not have "A-tier" products?

There is no way that a studio can have multiple flops and stay in business.

Well we should probably qualify "flop."

Edit: Also hasn't the complete indifference to outright disgust that western developers and "core" western gamers shown to the wii and DS proven that most people don't want cheaper budgetted games anyway?

Unfortunately, yes. Community preferences are driving this arms race of escalating costs. I think it's going to take a shift in market preferences to make a big splash, but maybe this focus on facebook gaming might do it.

Daaaaaaaamn, Jason Rubin is definitely in full on monetization mode. I guess that's why he got out of game design and now... consults? Does Bonus Round? I'm not really sure.

http://www.monkeygods.com/

 

[gerg]

That whole episode seemed tense to me :lol

I think it's to be expected when you have someone telling someone else what they don't want to hear.

The industry needs to re-capitalize based off successful smaller products and not off B-tier products that tend to fail

Or, if possible, on B-tier products that can actually turn a profit at the marketplace.

Edit: Also hasn't the complete indifference to outright disgust that western developers and "core" western gamers shown to the wii and DS proven that most people don't want cheaper budgetted games anyway?

(Bear in mind that I'm only talking about Western 18-35 male gamers here.)

I think we need to consider how these gamers might care for budget, in that I'm sure the concern is only very indirect. In this sense, I doubt the average casual gamer in this demographic actually knows how much the games they buy cost. Rather, he cares about certain values that those games have, one of them (namely, the graphical presentation of their games) which is linked directly to budget. (The distinction being that they care for the result, not the cause.) As long as this value didn't suffer, I'm sure that most gamers wouldn't mind cheaper budgeted games; the problem is that it most assuredly will.

 

[Sadist]

Was it just me or did the rest really not grasp what Jason was saying? They all kept acting as though if a team shut down the whole team would stick together and get another job as a whole studio :lol

Well, they got it in the end though. "What if Will Wright went to Activision and said hey, I want to make a game for you guys"

 

[StuBurns]

Was it just me or did the rest really not grasp what Jason was saying? They all kept acting as though if a team shut down the whole team would stick together and get another job as a whole studio :lol

What he said was a major game designer could not leave a company and head a new major project, and he is wrong. They gave examples, and when they did, he decided to ignore them.

 

[Y2Kev]

What he said was a major game designer could not leave a company and head a new major project, and he is wrong. They gave examples, and when they did, he decided to ignore them.

I can't think of any examples in the west. The qualifier of "had their team shut down" limits things too severely.

 

[SolidSnakex]

I can't think of any examples in the west. The qualifier of "had their team shut down" limits things too severely.

Yeah, that's a big issue there. Can anyone really think of developers with famous designers that have actually had their studios shut down?

 

[gerg]

What he said was a major game designer could not leave a company and head a new major project, and he is wrong. They gave examples, and when they did, he decided to ignore them.

You're simplifying his argument.

His argument is that a major game designer could not approach a company on his own and receive funding, once his or her respective development team has been disbanded. The problem with the examples that they gave in response to this is that they all involve a major developer/designer approaching a publisher alongside (the majority of) their respective team.

Well, they got it in the end though. "What if Will Wright went to Activision and said hey, I want to make a game for you guys"

I think that this is an interesting thought experiment.

 

[Cat in the Hat]

:lol

Goddamn Kamiya-san and Itagaki-san. Is there any way for a white dude speaking English to NOT sound like a tool when using the "-san" thing.

:lol take one look at that dude and you know he owns at least 2 katanas and has a sailor moon poster somewhere in his house.

Also Rubin gets mad props for saying the new Wolfenstien was amazing.

 

[StuBurns]

I can't think of any examples in the west. The qualifier of "had their team shut down" limits things too severely.

The issue with that argument (and it's a valid one) is the value of the designer. Lets say for example Ken Levine's new game bombs hard, and in four years his next game bombs, then Irrational get shuts down, will EA fund a new triple A IP by Levine? No, almost certainly not. But is his celebrity anything to do with that? No.

A 'top game designer' is one that's designing top games, if they get shut down it's because they aren't doing that. I don't see how you can be both a top game designer, and unemployed, unless by your own choice.

 

[NeoUltima]

Well no shit if one dude comes to Activision and says "gimme $40 millions to make a game" they won't do it unless they(they as in publisher or the dude) have a team to do it.

What a silly wasted episode, talking about something so trivial. Reality is that when they come with a proposal, they will have a team, or even more likely, they will join an existing team of the publisher's to make the game.
So stupid, talking about something there is no standard for, it can be different in every situation.

Jaffe with ESP could be an example of what could happen(again there is no set rule): Leaves SSM and most of his team behind. Joins Incognito to make CaC. Then leaves to start ESP to make TMps3 with some people from Incog, some new hires, and maybe some transfers from other Sony studios.

Infinite number of ways something like this could shake down.

Rubin is starting to annoy me, move on from silly little things please, your arguments are not perfect, give a quick rebuttal and move on if someone contradicts it. Jackass. He can speak good but really doesn't say much intelligent. In know-it-all tone: "In the long run they need to take risk!"...Wow such a genius! This piece of common sense is too much for my mind to wrap around. Thanks for sharing it with me! Not saying he isn't a smart guy, but it sure isn't shining through in this show.

 

[Sadist]

I think that this is an interesting thought experiment.

Thinking about what Bobby Kotick said about "missing out on The Sims" during his DICE speech, Activision would definitely bite. You could argue that Spore wasn't as succesful as The Sims though.

 

[Y2Kev]

The issue with that argument (and it's a valid one) is the value of the designer. Lets say for example Ken Levine's new game bombs hard, and in four years his next game bombs, then Irrational get shuts down, will EA fund a new triple A IP by Levine? No, almost certainly not. But is his celebrity anything to do with that? No.

A 'top game designer' is one that's designing top games, if they get shut down it's because they aren't doing that. I don't see how you can be both a top game designer, and unemployed, unless by your own choice.

It's not hard to imagine. Hideki Kamiya is a top game designer. I think all of the games he has ever touched are like 90+ on metacritic. But he had a bomb so he got forced out. Would you say he's not a top game designer?

Someone like Lemarchand jumping from Crystal Dynamics to Naughty Dog (a sony owned studio at the time) and then getting a ton of money to make Uncharted is kind of close, isn't it? It's just that his studio was never shut down. But I think they'd just integrate a top designer into an extant team.

How else would it work? Do you give a single set of guys $40 million and say make a game? lol

 

[Draft]

Also, I think you could argue that Bayonetta is not a AAA game.

AAA is not a quality ranking, it represents the development and advertising budget. Bayonetta is not a bargain game, but it is also not a MW2/GTA4/Madden level release. I would be shocked to learn that Bayonetta's total development + advertising budget approached, let alone exceeded, $40,000,000.

And obviously, we have no idea what Itagaki is doing. He's probably turning publisher start up funds into cocktails.

 

[gerg]

The issue with that argument (and it's a valid one) is the value of the designer. Lets say for example Ken Levine's new game bombs hard, and in four years his next game bombs, then Irrational get shuts down, will EA fund a new triple A IP by Levine? No, almost certainly not. But is his celebrity anything to do with that? No.

A 'top game designer' is one that's designing top games, if they get shut down it's because they aren't doing that. I don't see how you can be both a top game designer, and unemployed, unless by your own choice.

I think that the problem may be that, while we may think that the gaming industry is one that actively supports risk (and creativity to that end), in reality it may not be so kind. You say that it's difficult to be a "top game designer, and unemployed, unless by your own choice", but I think that, when we say "top game designer", we mean more someone who is known for their boundless creativity and genius, rather than, necessarily, their ability to make bountiful monies for their employers. In this way I think it's entirely conceivable to be a "top game designer" and remain unemployed, because these top designers don't always do the safe, money-making thing.

In a less competitive environment, this wouldn't necessarily be a problem because risk could more easily coincide with profit. Nowadays? Things aren't so secure.

Thinking about what Bobby Kotick said about "missing out on The Sims" during his DICE speech, Activision would definitely bite. You could argue that Spore wasn't as succesful as The Sims though.

Yeah.

In any case, I don't think that many people can claim to be Will Wright.

 

[Vilix]

I have to disagree with Jason this Bonus Round. You get someone who has a long list of AAA games under his belt, you bet a publisher is going to listen to his/her ideas and fund it if they think the idea is a good one. Pubs don't always do this, and I do think they will stick to what is safe, especially during these times. But, they know they have to innovate, and they'll give these top developers their ear if they smell a good investment.

 

[TheChewyWaffles]

Not a bad episode only because Shane hardly spoke.

I wonder if they are going to talk about piracy in any future episodes and how it could potentially cripple the whole industry if it gets PSP bad.

For example, they talked about how it's almost not worth it from a financial point of view to create a new innovative game. Which I think is sadly true. But add that with full rampant piracy and we are in a world of shit. There will never be another game released that isn't an exact replica of MW2 or whatever the trend is at the time.

The DS is many times "PSP-bad" and still doing just fine.

 

[spats]

Really interesting discussion. Things were getting pretty heated up.

 

[StuBurns]

It's not hard to imagine. Hideki Kamiya is a top game designer. I think all of the games he has ever touched are like 90+ on metacritic. But he had a bomb so he got forced out. Would you say he's not a top game designer?

Someone like Lemarchand jumping from Crystal Dynamics to Naughty Dog (a sony owned studio at the time) and then getting a ton of money to make Uncharted is kind of close, isn't it? It's just that his studio was never shut down. But I think they'd just integrate a top designer into an extant team.

How else would it work? Do you give a single set of guys $40 million and say make a game? lol

Kamiya got the boot yeah, and he got exactly what Rubin is saying doesn't happen. Sakaguchi was exactly the same too. I meant except the examples Rubin was ignoring.

And of course you're right, they either need a team, or need to be integrated into one, but I'm sure Rubin is well aware of that.

 

[Dennis]

This is probably the best episode of the Bonus Round I have ever seen. It felt like an actual debate between people who genuinely disagree.

I don't know who is right but I found Rubins insight into the industry very interesting.

 

[offshore]

The DS is many times "PSP-bad" and still doing just fine.

Yeah, for Nintendo.

 

[gerg]

Kamiya got the boot yeah, and he got exactly what Rubin is saying doesn't happen.

Except that, iirc, Kamiya is working alongside Platinum Games. Rubin was talking about examples where you don't have a pre-assembled team.

Thinking about it, I think that Jason is making an important point. While it may appear trivial to suggest that you won't be hired and given lots of money without a (or your old) team behind you, if it is as difficult as Jason is suggesting to acquire the funding to develop a game when you have shown yourself to be however creative in the past, it's going to be even more difficult for new developers who don't have that history. I think that Jason's point is that this environment leads onto a situation whereby, if the only avenue of entrance for new developers is outside of the "core" audience, so to speak, there may end up being a severe lack of new developers to create the AAA games we all know and love.

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Daaaaaaaamn, Jason Rubin is definitely in full on monetization mode. I guess that's why he got out of game design and now... consults? Does Bonus Round? I'm not really sure.

I think he just sits around swimming in all his money and making hats out of the fatty bank roll that Sony paid him when they took Naughty Dog off his hands. He cashed out and ran like a bandit the second the deal was done.

 

[Y2Kev]

Also, I think you could argue that Bayonetta is not a AAA game.

AAA is not a quality ranking, it represents the development and advertising budget. Bayonetta is not a bargain game, but it is also not a MW2/GTA4/Madden level release. I would be shocked to learn that Bayonetta's total development + advertising budget approached, let alone exceeded, $40,000,000.

And obviously, we have no idea what Itagaki is doing. He's probably turning publisher start up funds into cocktails.

I think that Bayonetta is possibly the cheapest game Kamiya has ever made, pre-advertising. Maybe more expensive than VJ. RE2 was rebooted in the middle of development and did have a high cost for FMVs. DMC was pseudorebooted from RE4. Okami was definitely more expensive than Bayonetta.

Bayonetta does not feel like an expensive game to me. It feels pretty thrifty.

 

[Sadist]

To my knowledge, Kamiya wasn't fired. He quit. Right?

 

[Draft]

I think that Bayonetta is possibly the cheapest game Kamiya has ever made, pre-advertising. Maybe more expensive than VJ. RE2 was rebooted in the middle of development and did have a high cost for FMVs. DMC was pseudorebooted from RE4. Okami was definitely more expensive than Bayonetta.

Bayonetta does not feel like an expensive game to me. It feels pretty thrifty.

I agree, feels like a game made on the cheap. It was pushed back to January so it wouldn't have to hang with the big boys of the Holidays (but I guess lots of games were with MW2) and it just had the one TV spot as far as promotion goes.

Rubin's probably got a point, the more I think about it. There are probably very few people in this industry who could jump ship from wherever they are, walk into an EA or a Ubi and just demand a $50,000,000 development and advertising budget with nothing but name recognition and a design doc.

 

[SolidSnakex]

There are probably very few people in this industry who could jump ship from wherever they are, walk into an EA or a Ubi and just demand a $50,000,000 development and advertising budget with nothing but name recognition and a design doc.

No one could do that. Because no one's name is money in this industry. Games that receive mega budgets, for the most part, are games in established and very reliable franchises. Publishers aren't going to risk that much money on the possibility that a game could be a hit. But you could probably get a very nice budget for the game. I doubt Jaffe or Jobe, who are at two new start up companies, are working on small budgets.

 

[StuBurns]

To my knowledge, Kamiya wasn't fired. He quit. Right?

Officially.

Can you name a top class game designer that has been fired? That isn't 'ancient history' as Rubin called it.

No one could do that. Because no one's name is money in this industry. Games that receive mega budgets, for the most part, are games in established and very reliable franchises. Publishers aren't going to risk that much money on the possibility that a game could be a hit.

Exactly, it doesn't matter who it is, they can be the head designer of WoW, they still wouldn't get that on spec.

Maybe the Houser brothers because everyone wants them, but it'd be buying them as much as the specific game they're trying to sell.

 

[UraMallas]

One thing I didn't agree with Rubin on is that a top-tier developer couldn't get an opportunity at another studio to develop a AAA game. I understand that not everybody could and that you would need more than just yourself, but to say that a Will Wright couldn't go to another company and ask for a $50 million budget for a game and not get it anywhere is pretty unreasonable. He has shown he knows how to make successful games.

Now, could Tim Shafer as easily get a big budget? Probably not, but he hasn't shown the ability to reach that huge mass market like some other developers do. And then there are people like Mikami and Itagaki in Japan that have done just what Rubin says is impossible --they've started up a new company on someone else's dime and made games. Sakaguchi did the same. His group is basically an idea factory, from what I understand of it, and he outsources most everything and gets funded by Microsoft or SEGA. Denis Dyack got the Too Human project green lit on his name and track record, even if it didn't end up like Microsoft or Dyack hoped. And then there is the fact that a Miyamoto, if unhappy at Nintendo, couldn't go anywhere in the world and get a blank check written to him for whatever project he could possibly think of.

There are people in the industry that could definitely do what Rubin thinks to be impossible. Will Wright, Cid Meier, Miyamoto, Mikami... they could and one or two of them HAVE done it. And if you took a group of 5 of the top people in a company like Infinity Ward or Naughty Dog and they shopped around they would be snatched up in a heartbeat and they would get a very strong deal. Bizarre Creations wasn't snatched up because of the grad student programmers, it was snatched up for the names at the top of the company, imo.