Support NeoGAF

[SolidSnakex]

I'm not saying that producing bad games doesn't play its part in studios closing down; if you produce bad game after bad game in constant succession, it should be no surprise if you lose investment. My general point, however, would be that the current industry climate doesn't allow for even slight deviance from excellence: I feel that a strong industry should allow for at least one hiccup on the path to success.

I feel strongly about this because innovation rarely involves doing something new and creative with absolute success on the first occasion - not all creativity will be enjoyed by all people from the get-go. Innovation is about making "mistakes", and if the industry, as a whole, starts to punish this to the point where innovation suffers, then I would be concerned about that industry's creative and financial health.

When you say 'hiccup' what exactly do you mean? A bad game here or there or just a game that might not be amazing but is still a good game?

I agree with your comment about innovation. Publishers shouldn't be afraid of taking chances as Rubin said. Borderlands is a recent example of a publisher taking a chance on an innovative title and it working out for them. Take Two seemed to have a great idea of when to release it and how to market it. Which is something other publishers look at when dealing with innovative titles that aren't in established series.

Unless I am misunderstanding you, you seem to be equivocating sales with quality, which is never the case. Or, alternatively, you seem to believe that studios will be kept alive because they produce good, but poor-selling, titles, which I don't think is the case either. If your studio is shut down, it can certainly be because you produced an excellent title (or a series of excellent titles) which simply did not sell well.

I should've worded that differently as I didn't mean that quality equals sales. But with that said, I think if you've got one or the other (good sales or quality titles) you're pretty much safe. If you look at the studios that have been shutdown recently, how many of them had been putting out good-great titles at the time of their closure? You can find studios that aren't lighting up the charts with sales, but they continue to put out quality products and they're still around.

 

[wizword]

CoD took it to the next level though. GTA has been a moderate success this Generation, though nothing like last gen, and even then the budgets were much more reasonable last generation.

God of War has yet to come out so we don't know exactly how it will perform. And Halo has always been a system seller as it is MS flagship title so it really doesn't count.

COD4's success is something that has not yet been seen in this generation thus far, only comparable to a Nintendo game...and that's the ultimate goal is it not? to have a game sell on "Nintendo's level", yet what they forgot is that Nintendo does not need to pump out millions upon millions on just one title and does not fear taking risks and being merely derivative (The Next Zelda and Metroid game should be further examples of that fact)

btw, I wasn't speaking of COD4s success only influencing one genre. Though the FPS genre is nearing complete fatigue

You are wrong here. Call of duty never took it to a whole new level. Last generation was when you saw this case. Half life 2, Metal Gear solid 2, Final Fantasy X, Halo 2, GTA San Andreas all probably had 40+ million dollar budgets/marketing. The fact remains as graphics and budgets grows, the more and more hollywood and blockbuster the industry becomes. I would never reflect Call of duty series as the prime example of this because it is the most successful game but ultimately budgets, and marketing are going to peak and the gaming industry is going to stabilize. There might be a small crash (which I doubt) but in no way is call of duty 4 to blame for anything about this. There would be a different game taking up those sales insetad.

 

[tim.mbp]

Seems like Rubin is convinced big name game devs are unable to make Triple A titles again/get picked up by the big publishers because he himself has not been approached yet/made a triple a game again.


Wel at least that is what I deduct from his arguments close to the end of the debate.

That's what I got out of it too. Seemed like he was talking from personal experience.

 

[[Nintex]]

With these examples, at least, such events happened during past generations. In fact, Jason Rubin touched upon this, saying that something similar with Rare was "ancient history". I think that that's a justified rebuttal, because the rising costs that exist now and make it so difficult to secure funding weren't a problem then.

Studios are bought and sold all the time. Rare isn't ancient history, in fact Microsoft bought the studio much like they bought Lionhead and set up Ruffian Games with some of the people who made Crackdown. They were willing to create an entire new team to continue work on the Halo series in-house. Creative or incredibly skilled individuals are still very important in this industry. Microsoft even hired Ken Lobb and nobody has an idea what his function is besides kicking ass at X10.

People forget that these developers have to secure funding all the time. Even Miyamoto needs to have his projects greenlit at some point and someone from Naughty Dog went to Sony to put the development of Uncharted 2 into gear. For the independent legendary developers like Mikami it's even easier to get their games made because they can approach multiple publishers. He's working with EA and SEGA at the same time. Something that Naughty Dog could never do if Sony shoots down their idea it won't get made and they're stuck to the publisher that owns them.

Also, don't forget Warren Spector, Disney asked him to build them a new Mickey game and they even bought his studio to get the work done.

 

[rollingstart]

Jason Rubin is a boss

Also, Bizarre Creations made The Club before moving to Activision; it was published by Sega.

 

[gerg]

When you say 'hiccup' what exactly do you mean? A bad game here or there or just a game that might not be amazing but is still a good game?

Evidently, there's a sliding scale. My main point is that it shouldn't be the case that only the titles that score 90+ on Metacritic turn a profit.

In general, however, I suppose I was referring to a title that doesn't set either the commercial or critical world alight, mainly because it has tried to accomplish something new and innovative.

I should've worded that differently as I didn't mean that quality equals sales. But with that said, I think if you've got one or the other (good sales or quality titles) you're pretty much safe.

I'm not sure I disagree with this.

The problem, however, is that beforehand it was much easier to have both; I don't think that game developers should have to choose between releasing an experimental title that may fail to turn a profit, and one which may sell very well, but may be like all the other games that sell very well. This dilemma didn't seem to occur as often last generation, and I hope it doesn't become more likely in the future.

If you look at the studios that have been shutdown recently, how many of them had been putting out good-great titles at the time of their closure? You can find studios that aren't lighting up the charts with sales, but they continue to put out quality products and they're still around.

Again, I don't think that the reward for sub-par quality should be closure. I understand that worse games might sell less copies, but not to the point I have outlined above.

Studios are bought and sold all the time. Rare isn't ancient history, in fact Microsoft bought the studio much like they bought Lionhead and set up Ruffian Games with some of the people who made Crackdown. They were willing to create an entire new team to continue work on the Halo series in-house. Creative or incredibly skilled individuals are still very important in this industry. Microsoft even hired Ken Lobb and nobody has an idea what his function is besides kicking ass at X10.

As I said, I'm not sure what the relevance is of examples from before the current generation, as the pressures that support Rubin's point didn't exist back then.

Furthermore, the point isn't about studios as a whole, but about specific individuals after their studios have disbanded.

 

[DMeisterJ]

With every episode Rubin becomes more of a know-it-all douche. It's getting annoying.

Yep.

It sounds like he's projecting. He feels as though he should get a shot at making a big name AAA game cause he started up ND, but hasn't gotten the shot to do so. imo of course.

 

[whitehawk]

Starting to get sick of how basic this show is. 90% of what is said is common sense stuff(to me anyway). Wish they would go more in depth. I guess it works for most of the shows audience though, so w/e.

Dude, we post on GAF. We aren't normal gamers.

 

[dsister44]

Shane said that this year was just a normal year with studios being cut but im pretty sure its become much worse than usual

 

[rollingstart]

Yep.

It sounds like he's projecting. He feels as though he should get a shot at making a big name AAA game cause he started up ND, but hasn't gotten the shot to do so. imo of course.

Check out the whole speech he made at DICE (2004 I think). Same basic stuff that he's doing here. It's easy to write off anything he says as a problem he faces, and while that's kinda true, there is a lot of truth to what he says.

I saw someone throw around the example of Infinity Ward starting up. IIRC, Call of Duty was already in the works when Activision picked them up. Not only that, they were coming off of a successful Medal of Honor game that this new game seemed to be a spiritual sequel for. And with Call of Duty 2 they were cockblocked from making Modern Warfare then by Activision. This is without mentioning how much that IP got whored out to other devs and platforms and ffs there was an n-gage Call of Duty.

 

[StuBurns]

Check out the whole speech he made at DICE (2004 I think). Same basic stuff that he's doing here. It's easy to write off anything he says as a problem he faces, and while that's kinda true, there is a lot of truth to what he says.

His DICE comments are interesting, it's pretty similar to some of the things Jaffe's being saying over the last few years. Basically, I'm top dog, I should be making bank, publishers are wrong. I have no idea how exact tasks are broken up in the game industry, so I'm not even going to pretend to know if a Jaffe is the real equivalent to the role of a film director, but should Jaffe be rich? Yes. Should he be able to do whatever he wants? Sure, and it seems he pretty much can. When they eventually announce TM, I'll be interested to see if he asked to make it, or they asked him. Given Sony's racing games at the moment, and their success, I think they're throwing him a bone.

 

[[Nintex]]

His DICE comments are interesting, it's pretty similar to some of the things Jaffe's being saying over the last few years. Basically, I'm top dog, I should be making bank, publishers are wrong. I have no idea how exact tasks are broken up in the game industry, so I'm not even going to pretend to know if a Jaffe is the real equivalent to the role of a film director, but should Jaffe be rich? Yes. Should he be able to do whatever he wants? Sure, and it seems he pretty much can. When they eventually announce TM, I'll be interested to see if he asked to make it, or they asked him. Given Sony's racing games at the moment, and their success, I think they're throwing him a bone.

The problem with Jaffe is that God of War 3 shows that they can make a great God of War game without him. For example, you can't make SOTC without Fumito Ueda and without Sakurai's friends in the industry Super Smash Bros. Brawl wouldn't have such an amazing soundtrack.

 

[The Faceless Master]

this episode really annoyed me because Rubin kept saying how if the top guys from Infinity Ward went to EA, they couldn't get a deal when those guys came from EA to Activision and got a deal!

wtf, worst example pick EVER!!!

 

[StuBurns]

The problem with Jaffe is that God of War 3 shows that they can make a great God of War game without him. For example, you can't make SOTC without Fumito Ueda.

I fully agree (well, I don't know GoW3 is going to be good, although I'd be shocked beyond belief if it wasn't), however isn't it more about the creative talent? Sony know Jaffe can come up with IPs the quality of GoW, can the same be said about Stig? Who knows, maybe he'll dump GoW and make the greatest game of all time, or maybe he'll fuck it all up. Twisted Metal will do fine, maybe Sony don't really care about it, but as long as it keeps Jaffe happy, everyone wins. Of course if he wanted to do something expensive and bad, they'd have to stop him, but as long as it's viable, they owe him for GoW, and if they aren't going to pay him crazy hollywood money, this is at least a decent alternative.

 

[rollingstart]

The problem with Jaffe is that God of War 3 shows that they can make a great God of War game without him. For example, you can't make SOTC without Fumito Ueda and without Sakurai's friends in the industry Super Smash Bros. Brawl wouldn't have such an amazing soundtrack.

These are the exceptions, and it's not like they're facts. Devil May Cry 3 and 4 were both great games without Kamiya. Resident Evil 5 was solid without Mikami, even though RE4 is better. Resident Evil 2 is way better than Resident Evil 1, and again, no Mikami. Capcom even made a couple portable Zelda games, and they were all better than the DS Nintendo Zelda games. Or talking about the west, iirc, Sims 2 and Sims 3 were successes without Wright. and so on.

 

[SolidSnakex]

Again, I don't think that the reward for sub-par quality should be closure.

I think most agree with that. And one thing i've wondered is if it's possible for these studios to change their focus to something like downloadable games instead of focusing on disc based titles, which are obviously going to cost more to develop. It'd likely still mean people would have to be cut, but the studio would still exist. I remember many people felt that this is what GRIN should've done. They released BC:R, which is a top notch downloadable title. Interestingly, once GRIN shutdown a few people from there opened up a new studio that is focusing on downloadable titles.

I thought of this again when THQ recently announced that they're rebranding Rainbow Studios and Juiced Games as 'THQ Digital Studios' and their focus would be on downloadable titles. So they get to scale back dev costs while keeping both teams around (although with some job cuts as I mentioned earlier).

 

[NullPointer]

Just watched this, and out of all that was said I think Shane made the best point.

Its not the types of games being made that are the problem (although the me-too-ism and saturation of specific genre templates is a problem), its the quality bar of these titles. What separates the major titles from the various clones out there is polish, quality and performance.

If Saboteur and Mercenaries 2 could have ever reached the requisite bar of quality and polish the concepts deserved, they'd get great critical and gamer acclaim, and who knows how well they could've done. Its the same exact reasoning behind NS third party sales. Its not enough to put out a bad or middling game that fits the bullet points - it actually has to be good, and besides that it has to be polished and really ready to be rolled out. Games with two many game breaking glitches, bugs, and ones in general that aren't up to snuff on current gameplay/UI/control elements that we come to see as a new standard every year, those games come across as relics, or mediocre.

Not all devs have what it takes to get the kind of polish a game needs. These devs should either collaborate/outsource to other companies with these specialties, or else seek a different market/price point for their game. Instead of shutting down these games, cut some features down to the bone, polish whats left and look at a smaller release like PSN/XBLA.

There are ways out of this risk-reward all-or-nothing investment trap. Now, more than ever. Publishers just need to stop focusing so narrowly on bullet points and genre, and put their money behind plishing and ironing out their major releases, or else look for a smaller release, on purpose. None of this sent-to-die bullshit.

Sorry for the rant.

 

[StuBurns]

Sorry for the rant.

But the polish of a game doesn't really matter does it? Assassin's Creed was embarrassing, progression stopping bugs, dog shit framerate a lot of the time, screentear everywhere, and it wasn't even a good game.

Quality doesn't really mean much.

 

[NullPointer]

But the polish of a game doesn't really matter does it? Assassin's Creed was embarrassing, progression stopping bugs, dog shit framerate a lot of the time, screentear everywhere, and it wasn't even a good game.

Quality doesn't really mean much.

Quality means everything. Its also what separates a Blizzard, Valve, Infinity Ward, Bungie, Naughty Dog, etc. from the rest. Love or hate their games, they are polished to a shine before release.

Well the gameplay has to be there as well, but yes, polish matters. And if we're talking AC1 here, it did have some tearing, but it was also positively dripping with quality, and raised the bar of many expectations for current gen. This is what led to the disappointment in AC1 - it looked so polished and awesome, but it was missing the gameplay that made the difference between a tech demo/R&D project and a full meaty game. I still love it though.

I'm not saying sacrifice gameplay for polish, at least not the extent of an AC1. But if you have a game with a great concept and novel, fun ideas, its not enough to just complete it and ship it. You need to raise it to the quality bar that we've all come to expect from our current gen of games. If that cannot be done, it should be released at a lower entry price, or cut down to size and put out in a PSN/XBLA environment.

 

[Sadist]

Dude, we post on GAF. We aren't normal gamers.

And this is why Gamepro is doing a story on "us".

Spoiler

Hurdie-hur-hur

 

[-DarKaoZ-]

I really liking this episodes of Bonus Round, but here a question.

Isn't Jaffe the exception of this "rule" that Jason brought up?

I mean, I'm not 100% sure, but it kinda looks that way to some extend.

 

[rollingstart]

Quality means everything. Its also what separates a Blizzard, Valve, Infinity Ward, Bungie, Naughty Dog, etc. from the rest. Love or hate their games, they are polished to a shine before release.

Look at Bioware on consoles. Super popular games and the first stable console game they've released has been Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 is one of the least polished big console releases and that didn't stop it from being getting the scores it did. Or look at Lionhead. Fable 2 made me feel like my 360 was going to die. Or Insomniac with Resistance 2. etc.

 

[Deku]

Quality means everything. Its also what separates a Blizzard, Valve, Infinity Ward, Bungie, Naughty Dog, etc. from the rest. Love or hate their games, they are polished to a shine before release.

I can't recall a time in games where there weren't quality games being made.

Blaming studios for not being good enough for not putting a good enough product out is a bit like blaming the victim.

The problem is the 'AAA' mentality. Which is ironic since the panel, in the way they categorize the problem, clearly show themselves to be part of the problem.

We didn't use to have this fixation on titles like that, and developers used to be able to survive in a healthy market selling games that sell 500k units.

Granted the industry is becoming more capital/labor intensive and comparisons to the industry from the early 90s may not be completely fair, but we're in a situation now where games that sell 2-3 million is just the break even point. Every publisher and their developer lackeys are after winning the lottery. To be the next CoD or WoW. So thier cost structure are designed for games that sell 15 million copies, when in reality most of them can only probably achieve 1-3 million. Not everyone is going to be that big genre definign games, and that's sort of the elephant in the room in the whole discussion.

They keep talking about these big titles without mentioning them directly too much (obvioushy GH, CoD, WoW) but look at small number of games there are compared to 1) the output of the entire industry 2) money that's left to the table for middling games or niche games.

The real problem is developers not making bank for having a 2-3 million seller. We can argue about their break-even points, but it's pretty clear selling a game in those numbers , unless the budget is low, is not really all that profitable.

And really, any suggestion that iphone, or facebook games as an alternative outlet is unacceptable. The current model is unsustainable. And the digital download business looks like the real fad that's ripe for consolidaiton when failure rates reaches a point where capital simply stops being available and we go through consolidation in that field. I mean we are already seeing it. After a number of rags to riches story, you have a few very large entities in that DD facebook/iphone business and a bunch of small fishes.

 

[StuBurns]

I really liking this episodes of Bonus Round, but here a question.

Isn't Jaffe the exception of this "rule" that Jason brought up?

I mean, I'm not 100% sure, but it kinda looks that way to some extend.

Nah, he hasn't changed publisher. It does seem like Sony are very loyal to him (and rightly so), but if he could do what he's doing elsewhere, who knows? Probably not.

 

[NullPointer]

Look at Bioware on consoles. Super popular games and the first stable console game they've released has been Mass Effect 2. Mass Effect 1 is one of the least polished big console releases and that didn't stop it from being getting the scores it did. Or look at Lionhead. Fable 2 made me feel like my 360 was going to die. Or Insomniac with Resistance 2. etc.

I'd say the original ME was the exception rather than the rule, and it was also the only game of its type available on the consoles - which is the only thing I can really talk about from experience.

I'd say we've seen a lot of first tries this gen - where the game that first comes out wows us with its unrealized potential, but we get enough glimpses of the solid foundation of the game that we let it slide and enjoy the ride. But the moment you put the controller down from finishing one of these first-attempt games is that you imagine the sequel, and cool it could be if the dev could get its shit together and solve the problems of the first. Devs who do this get all kinds of praise and sales on their next iteration. I'm talking Mass Effect 2, GRAW 2, AC2. I don't think I need to mention all the sequels that didn't get this right, but there are plenty of em. I guess my point is that we're pretty patient and forgiving with first releases on new hardware as a rule, until the bar gets raised.

And I don't mean to say that we're not seeing quality titles. We really are. I'm specifically talking about the high risk titles that didn't seem to make the sales that were expected. Most of those games mention had serious quality issues - they just weren't up to par with what we gamers expect from a major release these days.

Now, Brutal Legend? Haven't played anything but the demo but it did look polished, and felt like a true labor of love. I can't pinpoint why I didn't get into it, and why it didn't succeed as well as it could. Thats kindof a mystery to me,

 

[Shai-Tan]

With every episode Rubin becomes more of a know-it-all douche. It's getting annoying.

Someone mentioned after the first episode that he won't let other people get a word in. It was less obvious when he was making good points.

 

[Bizzyb]

You are wrong here. Call of duty never took it to a whole new level. Last generation was when you saw this case. Half life 2, Metal Gear solid 2, Final Fantasy X, Halo 2, GTA San Andreas all probably had 40+ million dollar budgets/marketing. The fact remains as graphics and budgets grows, the more and more hollywood and blockbuster the industry becomes. I would never reflect Call of duty series as the prime example of this because it is the most successful game but ultimately budgets, and marketing are going to peak and the gaming industry is going to stabilize. There might be a small crash (which I doubt) but in no way is call of duty 4 to blame for anything about this. There would be a different game taking up those sales insetad.

Hey Junior, I said COD4 took it to the next level this generation.

This generation as far as gaming budgets, profits recouped and revenue sources/streams etc is a different beast from last generation.

The industry is headed for a crash course if they keep up these extremely high production costs. DLC and what not is only slowing the bleeding but we already seeing the effects with studios closing their doors left and right or getting absorbed. I'm talking studios that made GOOD games and WELL known studios.

 

[Sohter.Nura]

I pretty much like Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter talking to each other about games.

Shane Satterfield is a disaster though. Every time he starts talking I feel like rolling my eyes and putting my hands in my face: stop making pointless comments..

 

[Kimosabae]

I pretty much like Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter talking to each other about games.

Shane Satterfield is a disaster though. Every time he starts talking I feel like rolling my eyes and putting my hands in my face: stop making pointless comments..

Yeah, don't know the history behind the Shane hate, but he makes legitimate points worthy of being addressed. I'm seeing a lot of comments like this throughout the thread that are more eye-roll worthy than anything he's been saying.

 

[templeusox]

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.

This hits the nail on the head. They dedicated an entire episode to what is really an insignificant blip on the question of if the industry is healthy or not. Everyone got bogged down way too hard on trying to prove or disprove Rubin's point and they lost the forest for the trees.

 

[spwolf]

The real problem is developers not making bank for having a 2-3 million seller. We can argue about their break-even points, but it's pretty clear selling a game in those numbers , unless the budget is low, is not really all that profitable.

And really, any suggestion that iphone, or facebook games as an alternative outlet is unacceptable. The current model is unsustainable. And the digital download business looks like the real fad that's ripe for consolidaiton when failure rates reaches a point where capital simply stops being available and we go through consolidation in that field. I mean we are already seeing it. After a number of rags to riches story, you have a few very large entities in that DD facebook/iphone business and a bunch of small fishes.

- unless this, not really that... means nothing. 2-3 million is best that 98% of titles can hope for. If your budget is made based on the fact that you have to sell 3 million to stay in business, then you are not doing it right or you are Activision or EA.
- digital download is not just facebook or iphone business. And it is not an fad. :lol. Most of the small guys there are making cash and are profitable and are growing organically. And there are thousands of them. It is a lot better business model than spending $10 million to develop one game and hope for the best. DD/online part will grow every day while retail will shrink at the same time. A lot of publishers are understanding this and have mobile divisions.

DD/online revenues have already reached equality with "retail" . And this is in Japan, where they do not like online gaming that much. I think a lot of people will be suprised if gfk/npd ever come out with online numbers, even though I am not sure how will they ever accuratly do that.

There is nothing wrong with developing smaller games, online games, casual games, mobile games, etc, etc. And not, it is not a fad...

 

[rollingstart]

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=1
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=2
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

First episode of Bonus Round with Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter pre-PS3/Wii launch (mid/late 2006). Interesting to watch years later and see who was right. I'm on part 3 now where they talk about the Wii; should be good.

 

[sdornan]

I don't really understand why I should be surprised that most people can't get $40 million in funding just by asking.

How many directors in the movie industry can pull off the same feat? Very few, I'm guessing.

 

[Zek]

To be fair, it's almost never the games that take risks that end up being huge successes. They become mildly successful and then the AAA devs come up behind them to knock the idea out of the park. It doesn't make sense to invest a big budget in a risky game concept.

 

[MikeE21286]

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=1
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=2
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

First episode of Bonus Round with Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter pre-PS3/Wii launch (mid/late 2006). Interesting to watch years later and see who was right. I'm on part 3 now where they talk about the Wii; should be good.

thanks for this...I remember watching these back when they'd first come out....should be fun to watch again.

 

[NeoUltima]

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=1
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=2
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

First episode of Bonus Round with Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter pre-PS3/Wii launch (mid/late 2006). Interesting to watch years later and see who was right. I'm on part 3 now where they talk about the Wii; should be good.

I've been watching this show for over 3 years? Wow lol.

 

[Margalis]

To be fair, it's almost never the games that take risks that end up being huge successes.

Wii Sports and Wii Fit are pretty glaring exceptions here. Those are two of the riskiest products of the past decade and two of the most successful.

 

[Zek]

Wii Sports and Wii Fit are pretty glaring exceptions here. Those are two of the riskiest products of the past decade and two of the most successful.

Well yeah but they're extensions of a console which was itself an even bigger risk, and they only worked because they were first party.

 

[Dogenzaka]

Quality means everything. Its also what separates a Blizzard, Valve, Infinity Ward, Bungie, Naughty Dog, etc. from the rest. Love or hate their games, they are polished to a shine before release.

Eh, not always.
If Valve's games are polished to a shine before release, then there would be no reason as to why Left 4 Dead 2 gets balance + bug-fix patches almost every other week.

 

[Zek]

Eh, not always.
If Valve's games are polished to a shine before release, then there would be no reason as to why Left 4 Dead 2 gets balance + bug-fix patches almost every other week.

Ironing out every bug before release is an impossible dream, and he's talking about overall game quality, not bugs.

 

[Vilix]

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=1
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=2
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

First episode of Bonus Round with Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter pre-PS3/Wii launch (mid/late 2006). Interesting to watch years later and see who was right. I'm on part 3 now where they talk about the Wii; should be good.

Pachter said he thought the breakout in marketshare between the three would be 30, 30, 30. What is the current breakout now?

 

[Kimosabae]

Ka - CHING!

*Pachter grin*

 

[Ten-Song]

Just got around to watching Part 3... and Jason Rubin, man, when it looks like Shane Satterfield knows more about the game industry than you, maybe you should just quiet down a little and stop getting all flustered. He kept using the word "guarantee" despite Pachter and Satterfield constantly throwing up counter examples, and overall just sounded kind of like a paranoid know it all.

 

[Chairman Yang]

Satterfield sucked in the first two parts, but he's better in this one.

 

[Fafalada]

I think a lot of people will be suprised if gfk/npd ever come out with online numbers, even though I am not sure how will they ever accuratly do that.

Technically it's easy to be accurate because online business know exactly how much is being spent on their products - on the flipside it's all confidential info to the respective publishers/operators, so the most I ever expect to see from outside is consolidated market numbers.
On that note - bulk of PC revenue already comes from online, and most of it is from markets that are traditionally considered irrelevant in terms of 'size' (Eg. asian territories outside of Japan, etc.).

 

[D4Danger]

http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=1
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=2
http://www.gametrailers.com/bonusround.php?ep=1&pt=3

First episode of Bonus Round with Jason Rubin and Michael Pachter pre-PS3/Wii launch (mid/late 2006). Interesting to watch years later and see who was right. I'm on part 3 now where they talk about the Wii; should be good.

Jason Rubin was right about almost everything in that episode from 2006.

I get the feeling we'll be watching this episode in 3 years and he'll be right again.

 

[Johann]

Well yeah but they're extensions of a console which was itself an even bigger risk, and they only worked because they were first party.

That isn't true. The failure of Wii Music and Animal Crossing: City Folk it cost Nintendo dearly in 2009. Despite their track-record, they can mess up badly and screw their momentum. Wii Fit with its higher than usual price, bulky SKU, and the very concept is the definition of risk in this industry. At best, you could say that Nintendo's games hit it big when the succeed but don't cause as proportionally big of a problem when they don't

Pachter said he thought the breakout in marketshare between the three would be 30, 30, 30. What is the current breakout now?

Let's see (Rounded Up to the hundredth):

360: 39 Million Sold as of early January 2010 per Press Release (27.87%)
PS3: 33.5 Million As of December 2009 per Official Corporate Information (23.94%)
Wii: 67.45 Million As of December 2009 per Consolidated Sales Report (48.2%)

 

[Lard]

With every episode Rubin becomes more of a know-it-all douche. It's getting annoying.

Watching this now and it's exactly what I was thinking.

 

[wizword]

Hey Junior, I said COD4 took it to the next level this generation.

This generation as far as gaming budgets, profits recouped and revenue sources/streams etc is a different beast from last generation.

The industry is headed for a crash course if they keep up these extremely high production costs. DLC and what not is only slowing the bleeding but we already seeing the effects with studios closing their doors left and right or getting absorbed. I'm talking studios that made GOOD games and WELL known studios.

But the marketing is reflected due to sales. There wasn't ever a game that sold that well. It is expected that a game that is going to make 600 million dollars of revnue to have higher marketing and advertising. The game never took anything to exorbitant levels except for the fact that the game just sold better than everything else. If another game was just as big of a success, that game would ultimately be considered this horrible 'evil'. Call of Duty Modern warfare series hasn't changed the fact that budget and marketing for games have increased. It is just being looked down upon because it is the most successful game.

The fact remains that the difference in quality between small budget, and large budget games are beginning to to become more and more dramatic. I dobut there will be a crash (seeing how there will be YoY increase in software sales for hardcore and casual market) but ultimately a rebalance of development talent. I would think that the b-tier developers would move to either cheaper games, or casual games.

I knew that came out the wrong way (sounded malicious) but I think that the industry is just fine. The fps genre games are going to sell well always because that genre appeals the most. And the talent and art would just move around.

 

[Jeels]

I like how Rubin ended it with, "I don't know about anyone else, but it hasn't happened with me"

Uhh, we were never talking about him, and all those counterpoints of it happening to others, maybe its HIM that's the problem. If someone like that tried to make a business pitch to me for a multimillion dollar game with his type of attitude...