Support NeoGAF

[Fafalada]

The Korean MMO pay to pimp out model isn't really suited for a lot of the gametypes that we enjoy right now.

It works(as in, making money) with Single-player, Co-Op, and straight PvP.
Some genres that have successful games with the model(and there are many more I don't know or remember off hand):
Sports (Football, Basketball, Baseball, Golf...),FPS,Music games,RPGs (MMO and MO),Racing,Brawling,Strategy...

I'm actually betting that for more obscure/niche game-types that haven't been done yet, there's a fair chance those could make more money as F2P then a packaged/digital sale too.

 

[templeusox]

And here is what's becoming a customary prologue by Mr. Rubin to Part 3 of the Bonus Round on his blog:

http://www.jasonrubinblog.blogspot.com/

 

[Kintaro]

And here is what's becoming a customary prologue by Mr. Rubin to Part 3 of the Bonus Round on his blog:

http://www.jasonrubinblog.blogspot.com/

Good explanation there. Makes sense to me.

 

[templeusox]

From the blog:

And finally, to those that pointed to the fact that I said on the panel that I couldn’t get a deal as proof that this was “all about me” are utterly missing the point. I am the only one on the panel who has been out in the real world talking to publishers about making AAA games. Shane has not, Michael has not, and Geoff has not. Developer(s) may prove me wrong (and I hope they do!), but with no disrespect to my fellow panelists, they have no experience to back up what they were saying.

Yikes...

 

[Ten-Song]

And here is what's becoming a customary prologue by Mr. Rubin to Part 3 of the Bonus Round on his blog:

http://www.jasonrubinblog.blogspot.com/

His argument is still too built upon shutting out any dissenting opinion and is basically just him saying "I'm right, and no one in the universe can prove me wrong." It's also worded in a very douchey way.

He wants to write off stuff like Bayonetta as "fringe" cases or rare exceptions, but then does that mean he assumes that every developer ever has that kind of talent behind it? People like Mikami and Wright have proven themselves and do basically get leeway to do whatever the hell they want. There are many other examples as well, but again, his best counter to that is that such things are rare exceptions.

His argument is less an argument, so much as him trying to posture his opinion as being the sacred truth.

 

[templeusox]

BTW, I think the strongest point of the segment was something Pachter said in the beginning which got glossed over. Publishers had no problem absorbing developers when things were going well, but they weren't structurally prepared to deal with the troughs of the industry, and that's the reason they are rapidly contracting right now.

 

[TheHeretic]

Jason Rubin has real force of conviction, which is probably what has made him so successful.

 

[templeusox]

His argument is still to built upon shutting out any dissenting opinion and is basically just him saying "I'm right, and no one in the universe can prove me wrong." It's also worded in a very douchey way.

He wants to write off stuff like Bayonetta as "fringe" cases or rare exceptions, but then does that mean he assumes that every developer ever has that kind of talent behind it? People like Mikami and Wright have proven themselves and do basically get leeway to do whatever the hell they want. There are many other examples as well, but again, his best counter to that is that such things are rare exceptions.

His argument is less an argument, so much as him trying to posture his opinion as being the sacred truth.

He loves to write in absolutes. He uses a lot of juvenile rhetoric which ends up reading like a forum post. He is condescendingly dismissive of Shane Satterfield. It's really a tough read to be honest. He undercuts a lot of what he's saying, just by the way he says it.

 

[NeoUltima]

And here is what's becoming a customary prologue by Mr. Rubin to Part 3 of the Bonus Round on his blog:

http://www.jasonrubinblog.blogspot.com/

Glad he made it a little more clear but this makes him seem a little defensive. He probably shouldn't have brought it up on the show if he couldn't explain it properly there. He can't blame people for jumping at him when he doesn't make himself clear on the show.

Ultimately, his argument makes me say "no shit" considering he is constraining it within specific parameters. He really does act like a pretentious know-it-all.

Can't wait to see what the Rubin Round has in store for us next week.

 

[Kintaro]

Well, considering his experience in the industry versus...well, all of this forum's besides other industry vets who may have been in his shoes (if so, care to speak up on this issue?), I'll believe that he has his views and insight on things that we all will never, ever know about.

So...yeah.

Anyways, someone mentioned Michael's point about how the publisher/developer dynamic has shifted balance over the years. That was a good point and I have to wonder when this dynamic will shift back over to the way it used to be. At least 50/50 instead of how lopsided it is now. It is possible that the industry could be much healthier that way? I'd like to think so.

 

[rollingstart]

And finally, to those that pointed to the fact that I said on the panel that I couldn’t get a deal as proof that this was “all about me” are utterly missing the point. I am the only one on the panel who has been out in the real world talking to publishers about making AAA games. Shane has not, Michael has not, and Geoff has not. Developer(s) may prove me wrong (and I hope they do!), but with no disrespect to my fellow panelists, they have no experience to back up what they were saying.

:lol

It's true too! How many times do you hear of a "game journalist" join a studio and talk about how they had no idea what it was like? Even if you think Rubin is just being cocky, he has experience that the others do not have. That's a fact. Of course you'd have people on gaf wanting to side with Satterfield and Pachter because they're even less informed about all this stuff. By no means should you accept everything said, but in this topic Rubin has more experience than the other three. Maybe if they were talking about the limitations gaming press has over what they can say or something like that it would tilt towards Satterfield.

He wants to write off stuff like Bayonetta as "fringe" cases or rare exceptions, but then does that mean he assumes that every developer ever has that kind of talent behind it? People like Mikami and Wright have proven themselves and do basically get leeway to do whatever the hell they want. There are many other examples as well, but again, his best counter to that is that such things are rare exceptions.

There aren't many other examples, though. People are using Wright and Miyamoto as examples because they mostly hypothetical situations. And again, we're talking big budget game in 2010. Costs to make a blockbuster/AAA game have gone way up and the number thrown around was $40 million.

 

[Mael]

There aren't many other examples, though. People are using Wright and Miyamoto as examples because they mostly hypothetical situations. And again, we're talking big budget game in 2010. Costs to make a blockbuster/AAA game have gone way up and the number thrown around was $40 million.

They're even more hypothetical than it seems.
I mean what was Wright last project? Spore? Something that ended up completely shit after corporate meddling...
and Miyamoto last pet project?
NSMBW is a clear case of corporate wanting this game done
WiiFit+ is quite the same
Wii Sport Resort is also done with bolstering wii sales more than 'Miyamoto's vision'

Wii music maybe? But that's more like the first project of Eguchi....

Seriously what was Miyamoto's last project as a director anyway?

The last time Nintendo did a blank check to someone to make a game that may have been Style Savvy

 

[NeoUltima]

:lol

It's true too! How many times do you hear of a "game journalist" join a studio and talk about how they had no idea what it was like? Even if you think Rubin is just being cocky, he has experience that the others do not have. That's a fact. Of course you'd have people on gaf wanting to side with Satterfield and Pachter because they're even less informed about all this stuff. By no means should you accept everything said, but in this topic Rubin has more experience than the other three. Maybe if they were talking about the limitations gaming press has over what they can say or something like that it would tilt towards Satterfield.

It would be nice then, if he offered up some real unique knowledge then rather than what is basically common sense. And If he had made his point clear on the show, the other two would have been like, "ok thats nice".
And I don't think it has ever been his day job as a "video game consultant"(just wtf does that even entail?). Nothing he is saying is something that only a "video game consultant" would pick up. It's basic business knowledge. His mantra is basically "publishers want to avoid risk, but they need to innovate and take on risk." Welcome to the dilemma of almost every industry. I've yet to hear something from him that he would be more qualified to say than Pachter or anyone else not living under a rock.
The guy comes off as an arrogant douche.

Or maybe I am just overestimating the intelligence of the average person by saying this stuff is common sense...

 

[Kintaro]

Or maybe I am just overestimating the intelligence of the average person by saying this stuff is common sense...

This is the games industry. Common sense is as rare as a new IP selling 5 million units. I mean, Shane Satterfield believes every PC gamer is a pirate and dedicated servers are overrated.

 

[timmy]

I think Rubin's point is mostly correct, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

If a group of four guys from Infinity Ward or Bungie can't walk up to some random publisher and get a blank check for some gigantic new project, is the sky really falling? Too many people think of "AAA" (whatever the hell that means) as being the default in this industry. What if four guys go and start working on something smaller scale? Who is to say that can't be awesome too?

 

[Kintaro]

I think Rubin's point is mostly correct, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

If a group of four guys from Infinity Ward or Bungie can't walk up to some random publisher and get a blank check for some gigantic new project, is the sky really falling? Too many people think of "AAA" (whatever the hell that means) as being the default in this industry. What if four guys go and start working on something smaller scale? Who is to say that can't be awesome too?

Well, of course no one is saying it can't be awesome. However, I think it's safe to say that this industry has become "AAA" driven now. For the worse IMO. All of them touch on that point.

What I would really like to hear is how this industry can get its budgets under control and get things to some sort of stability. This AAA or bust mentality is hurting things more than helping. There's no reason why games of lower "tiers" shouldn't be just as profitable to both developers and publishers as AAA titles are. The growing dependance on DLC is feels like a band=aid to a gaping wound.

 

[conman]

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...

Yeah. Seemed strange to me, even before he said that. All I kept thinking every time he spoke was, "Sounds an awful lot like you're describing your own situation."

After reading his blog post, I don't really see the big deal. Who cares if "AAA" titles lose their innovation? Not sure about you all, but I'd much rather play cheaper, lower budget games with more creativity made by smaller teams. Sounds like a good thing to me.

It's not good for anyone that the gaming industry is so hit-driven.

 

[gerg]

I think Rubin's point is mostly correct, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

If a group of four guys from Infinity Ward or Bungie can't walk up to some random publisher and get a blank check for some gigantic new project, is the sky really falling? Too many people think of "AAA" (whatever the hell that means) as being the default in this industry. What if four guys go and start working on something smaller scale? Who is to say that can't be awesome too?

People seem to think that Rubin's point is trivial - of course you won't get tons of money for just an idea - but I think that his concern is valid. As he writes on his blog: "IF [emphasis his] out of work developers (or those that chose to leave) cannot sign new AAA deals then fewer people and fewer teams working on these games will negatively impact the number of these titles released. Fewer titles should also mean less diversity unless somehow the industry simultaneously finds a will to experiment at the same time as it is losing projects."

We seem to take the current status quo as accepted, when in reality we should be looking towards one that values more greatly diversity and flexibility.

Yeah. Seemed strange to me, even before he said that. All I kept thinking every time he spoke was, "Sounds an awful lot like you're describing your own situation."

People seem to read his (almost) ending line as arrogant, when I didn't see it that way. When he said "If I couldn't do it, no one else can", I don't think he meant to suggest that he was even greater than Miyamoto or Will Wright, and that he is the measure of possibility. Rather, I think he meant to give himself as an example of a creative developer (but, of course, not in the manner of Miyamoto or Will Wright) who is just like hundreds of other developers in the industry.

After reading his blog post, I don't really see the big deal. Who cares if "AAA" titles lose their innovation? Not sure about you all, but I'd much rather play cheaper, lower budget games with more creativity made by smaller teams. Sounds like a good thing to me.

Because I think people would prefer it that every developer can have fun in the playground, instead of the majority of them residing themselves to the sandbox whilst the big kids can only play on the swings. What happens when all the big kids start developing cheaper, lower budget games as well? Can the independent, smaller teams compete then?

 

[sonicmj1]

I think Rubin's point is mostly correct, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

If a group of four guys from Infinity Ward or Bungie can't walk up to some random publisher and get a blank check for some gigantic new project, is the sky really falling? Too many people think of "AAA" (whatever the hell that means) as being the default in this industry. What if four guys go and start working on something smaller scale? Who is to say that can't be awesome too?

This is only really an issue in tandem with the growing focus on AAA games.

If a smaller-scale project can succeed, then those individuals will be allowed to work on a game that has the possibility of success. But if earlier-stated points are true (that the industry is becoming more AAA-game driven, with sales focused around a few blockbusters instead of other smaller titles), then publishers will be wary to finance even a smaller-scale game.

Mercenaries 2 wasn't a project on the scale of a Halo or Call of Duty. Neither was Wolfenstein, or Brutal Legend, or Mirror's Edge. With rare exceptions (Army of Two?), there is very little room for a project of that nature to succeed on HD consoles.

If AAA games are the only winners, and if new developers can't work on AAA games, then why should publishers fund them at all?

 

[Kimosabae]

Tried posting this on Jason's blog, so I'll just post it here:

Well thought out, Jason.

I'd just like to propose the idea that this prognostication of shrinkage is, I think, a good thing. I'm all for diversity, but today, I feel there is currently too much and the market seems saturated (DS, PSP, iPhone, PS3, 360, Wii, PSN, WiiWare, XBLA etc.). As expensive as AAA titles are to make, their profit thresholds are higher. Release calenders are simply enjambed with these kinds of releases and there simply is not enough time or money to go around for the average gamer to spend on these games.

I'd love to go back to the days when only a handful of AAA games are released in a year. The market simply seems currently too large. I could only imagine what it would look like without the current Wii expansion.

Furthermore, this gives less than AAA caliber titles a much better chance in the market during other periods, making for a much healthier overall market, IMO.

 

[Effect]

I think Rubin's point is mostly correct, but I don't understand why it's such a big deal.

If a group of four guys from Infinity Ward or Bungie can't walk up to some random publisher and get a blank check for some gigantic new project, is the sky really falling? Too many people think of "AAA" (whatever the hell that means) as being the default in this industry. What if four guys go and start working on something smaller scale? Who is to say that can't be awesome too?

This is what I really didn't get about what Rubin was saying. He's saying because they can't do it (walk right into another publisher) that it's the end of the world. He's acting as if the only important thing is to make AAA games and really it's become a problem that AAA is based around how much money is spent. That says more about the suppose gaming media then anything I think that one needs to drop that much money in order to get certain "reviews".

If a person is headhunted from another company more often then not that person will be given a chance. Why else go out of your way to grab someone from another company. However if you are applying for a job at another company sorry but you don't deserve to have a blank check thrown at you. They like all other people need to earn that right and even then this is a business. Expecting blank checks is part of the reason the industry is in the place it is. If a business is actually run like a business, budgets kept in check then I don't see anything wrong.

He brought up the guys that made Torchlight I believe. That is a great game. Yet because it isn't a so called AAA game he sort of dismissed it. The idea that people would go off, leave these big development houses, and do other games that were simply decent to very good in order to make a modest income seemed to be a negative to Rubin. That's how I took it. Or am I wrong in seeing this?

This did seem more about him then anything else. Even when Shane was actually making points that went against what Rubin was saying he simply dismissed them in the whole "I've been in the industry" line of reasoning.

 

[Bizzyb]

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.

Nice post. Yeah this is pretty interesting. I wonder if some of them really believed what they said, like did Pachter really expect PS3 to end up on top? Based on what? Name brand?

 

[EarsOfASnake]

Nice post. Yeah this is pretty interesting. I wonder if some of them really believed what they said, like did Pachter really expect PS3 to end up on top? Based on what? Name brand?

I thought it was crazy that in part 2 when they speak about big titles for each system they mention Alan Wake, Gran Turismo and Final Fantasy 13, damn have we been speaking about those titles for a long time.

 

[DMeisterJ]

From the blog:


Yikes...

This only furthe proves my point that he was talking about himself. To me he comes off cocky and dick-ish.

 

[spwolf]

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.).

well the problem with PC market is that every publisher has their own store. Especially when it comes to casual and online games - they might offer some structured game on Steam, but they also offer it on their own store which costs them 3% instead of 30%. And of course, all of the online games have their own stores. I doubt bulk of PC revenue comes from Korea though, it comes from everywhere... it is just almost impossible to track.

 

[Stumpokapow]

We seem to take the current status quo as accepted, when in reality we should be looking towards one that values more greatly diversity and flexibility.

I don't personally feel like there's any less diversity now than ever. In some ways, there's more--or at least it's easier to find diverse games than it used to be. For the 20+ years I've been gaming, there's never been a moment where I felt like I wasn't able to play any genre of game I've wanted to play, or just get an entirely new experience that crosses genres.

To me, complaining that the big high profile releases are FPSes is like complaining that the Billboard Hot 100 is full of shitty music. Not that I disagree, but with the internet and demos and blogs, is it really hard to find games outside that paradigm--provided, of course, you're willing to look on every hardware platform.

I'm not sure there's ever been a time in history where a small group of developers could get greenlit for an exceptionally high profile title. You start small. Maybe you're 5th Cell and you make mobile games until you're stable enough to graduate to DS. Maybe you start on the iPhone. Maybe you do console games, but instead of approaching big publishers with stars in your eyes, you find out if Majesco or Agetec will greenlight you for a title that is good ROI based on 20,000 copies sold. Maybe you release something on PC for free (!!!). Maybe you work on a licensed title. Maybe you do uncredited support work on another developer's project.

How you do get greenlit for a AAA game is to climb the ranks. Direct a few lower profile games and get bumped up the chain. Jordan Thomas just directed BioShock 2, and it's because he had a lot of 2nd tier positions over the last decade. Kamiya worked for Namco before moving to Capcom and doing a few second-tier roles before moving up to Director. Shinji Mikami did second tier stuff before directing--and the first directing gig he did get was based on a pitch that basically logically extended from an earlier title Capcom put out.

Consider Dark Void, which just came out in January. The game ended up being pretty bad by most accounts but it was greenlit and given a pretty decent HD generation budget and a huge amount of development time. Why? Because everyone involved with the project had previously worked on high-ish profile titles. You had veterans from FASA, you had internal Microsoft people. They worked their way up the chain, then formed their own company when they had the pedigree to get a deal.

Consider Chair Entertainment. The founders started the company after having released Advent Rising at their former company, which itself had mostly done artwork and promotional stuff before eventually making a game. Seeing a brighter future as an independent, the founders started Chair. Having worked with Orson Scott Card on Advent Rising, they knew him. They licensed his works. They licensed UE3 to work on 2d games. Epic was apparently suitably impressed with their potential despite their initial work (Undertow) being pretty underwhelming, so they got bought up. As a result, they now have access to substantially more resources and they ended up making probably the closest thing to a AAA game (in scope / budget) that console download services have had.

Rubin, on the other hand, acrimoniously left the industry and only returned years later. His first project since coming back was an edition of Snood. By all accounts he's got a small, modest team. I'm not sure why he thinks his team is well positioned to "deserve" a AAA contract just because he directed and shaped a AAA franchise 5+ years ago. That's no slight against him, just suggesting that he really needs to get all of his ducks in a row in terms of manpower and in terms of demonstrating that his new team has what it takes. That's how you do it as an indie. I'm sure he'd be able to get a mid-top creative job at any number of established developers or publishers based on his personal record, but if he wants to stay outside all that, he's going to have to prove his mettle again.

 

[Ulairi]

Geoff is the dean of games journalism? How did this get started?

 

[Mael]

I don't personally feel like there's any less diversity now than ever. In some ways, there's more--or at least it's easier to find diverse games than it used to be. For the 20+ years I've been gaming, there's never been a moment where I felt like I wasn't able to play any genre of game I've wanted to play, or just get an entirely new experience that crosses genres.

To me, complaining that the big high profile releases are FPSes is like complaining that the Billboard Hot 100 is full of shitty music. Not that I disagree, but with the internet and demos and blogs, is it really hard to find games outside that paradigm--provided, of course, you're willing to look on every hardware platform.

I'm not sure there's ever been a time in history where a small group of developers could get greenlit for an exceptionally high profile title. You start small. Maybe you're 5th Cell and you make mobile games until you're stable enough to graduate to DS. Maybe you start on the iPhone. Maybe you do console games, but instead of approaching big publishers with stars in your eyes, you find out if Majesco or Agetec will greenlight you for a title that is good ROI based on 20,000 copies sold. Maybe you release something on PC for free (!!!). Maybe you work on a licensed title. Maybe you do uncredited support work on another developer's project.

How you do get greenlit for a AAA game is to climb the ranks. Direct a few lower profile games and get bumped up the chain. Jordan Thomas just directed BioShock 2, and it's because he had a lot of 2nd tier positions over the last decade. Kamiya worked for Namco before moving to Capcom and doing a few second-tier roles before moving up to Director. Shinji Mikami did second tier stuff before directing--and the first directing gig he did get was based on a pitch that basically logically extended from an earlier title Capcom put out.

Consider Dark Void, which just came out in January. The game ended up being pretty bad by most accounts but it was greenlit and given a pretty decent HD generation budget and a huge amount of development time. Why? Because everyone involved with the project had previously worked on high-ish profile titles. You had veterans from FASA, you had internal Microsoft people. They worked their way up the chain, then formed their own company when they had the pedigree to get a deal.

Consider Chair Entertainment. The founders started the company after having released Advent Rising at their former company, which itself had mostly done artwork and promotional stuff before eventually making a game. Seeing a brighter future as an independent, the founders started Chair. Having worked with Orson Scott Card on Advent Rising, they knew him. They licensed his works. They licensed UE3 to work on 2d games. Epic was apparently suitably impressed with their potential despite their initial work (Undertow) being pretty underwhelming, so they got bought up. As a result, they now have access to substantially more resources and they ended up making probably the closest thing to a AAA game (in scope / budget) that console download services have had.

Rubin, on the other hand, acrimoniously left the industry and only returned years later. His first project since coming back was an edition of Snood. By all accounts he's got a small, modest team. I'm not sure why he thinks his team is well positioned to "deserve" a AAA contract just because he directed and shaped a AAA franchise 5+ years ago. That's no slight against him, just suggesting that he really needs to get all of his ducks in a row in terms of manpower and in terms of demonstrating that his new team has what it takes. That's how you do it as an indie. I'm sure he'd be able to get a mid-top creative job at any number of established developers or publishers based on his personal record, but if he wants to stay outside all that, he's going to have to prove his mettle again.

Couldn't have been said better.

 

[gerg]

I don't personally feel like there's any less diversity now than ever. In some ways, there's more--or at least it's easier to find diverse games than it used to be. For the 20+ years I've been gaming, there's never been a moment where I felt like I wasn't able to play any genre of game I've wanted to play, or just get an entirely new experience that crosses genres.

To me, complaining that the big high profile releases are FPSes is like complaining that the Billboard Hot 100 is full of shitty music. Not that I disagree, but with the internet and demos and blogs, is it really hard to find games outside that paradigm--provided, of course, you're willing to look on every hardware platform.

Diversity is an inaccurate word, because I agree, in a sense, that gaming today is just as diverse as it ever was. There's lots of diverse business models and lots of different genres. My problem, however, is that diversity has been lost within the triple AAA "genre", so to speak. And I don't mean this in the sense that all the games are the same thematically - you're always going to have some games being more popular than others - but that they're published or developed by the same people. This ties in with Pachter's comments about 90% of all game development being done in-house within the big publishers; imagine if 50% of all titles in the Billboard Hot 100 were by the same artist, 40% by another, and 10% by everyone else. And then imagine that the only way to really compete with these artists was to have your title on the Hot 100. (I'm stretching the analogy, but as with most business models the comparison doesn't work at the fine level.)

I think a more accurate term might be "publisher (or developer) diversity". My argument concerns more competition than most anything else.

I'm not sure there's ever been a time in history where a small group of developers could get greenlit for an exceptionally high profile title. You start small. Maybe you're 5th Cell and you make mobile games until you're stable enough to graduate to DS. Maybe you start on the iPhone. Maybe you do console games, but instead of approaching big publishers with stars in your eyes, you find out if Majesco or Agetec will greenlight you for a title that is good ROI based on 20,000 copies sold. Maybe you release something on PC for free (!!!). Maybe you work on a licensed title. Maybe you do uncredited support work on another developer's project.

Perhaps, but I don't think that the argument has ever been that someone with large ideas should be able to walk out of university and be put in charge of a large project. I agree that you need to work your way up the corporate ladder, but not everyone's career history is so ideal. As Rubin specified, his argument regards only people who have produced good high(ish)-tier games in the past, but, for some reason or another, find themselves without a team. Here it appears that the gaming industry is reluctant to finance these developers as an independent studio, and so it seems that a few rungs are missing from the ladder.

A lot of what Rubin was talking about in his blog post seemed to be about personal freedom. Unless I am misrepresenting him, his concern seemed to be that, even if you join a pre-existing team in a publisher, you won't be given the same opportunity for risk and creativity that you would if you are given the chance to build your own team that works independently.

How you do get greenlit for a AAA game is to climb the ranks. Direct a few lower profile games and get bumped up the chain. Jordan Thomas just directed BioShock 2, and it's because he had a lot of 2nd tier positions over the last decade. Kamiya worked for Namco before moving to Capcom and doing a few second-tier roles before moving up to Director. Shinji Mikami did second tier stuff before directing--and the first directing gig he did get was based on a pitch that basically logically extended from an earlier title Capcom put out.

Consider Dark Void, which just came out in January. The game ended up being pretty bad by most accounts but it was greenlit and given a pretty decent HD generation budget and a huge amount of development time. Why? Because everyone involved with the project had previously worked on high-ish profile titles. You had veterans from FASA, you had internal Microsoft people. They worked their way up the chain, then formed their own company when they had the pedigree to get a deal.

I'm afraid I don't know enough about these people to comment in any detail, but did they, since the start of this generation, approach developers without a team and get considerable finance to start development on a game?

Edit: As Rubin himself mentions, it may actually be the case that joining a pre-existing team within a publisher is a lot more flexible than he argues.

 

[Kittonwy]

I don't personally feel like there's any less diversity now than ever. In some ways, there's more--or at least it's easier to find diverse games than it used to be. For the 20+ years I've been gaming, there's never been a moment where I felt like I wasn't able to play any genre of game I've wanted to play, or just get an entirely new experience that crosses genres.

To me, complaining that the big high profile releases are FPSes is like complaining that the Billboard Hot 100 is full of shitty music. Not that I disagree, but with the internet and demos and blogs, is it really hard to find games outside that paradigm--provided, of course, you're willing to look on every hardware platform.

I'm not sure there's ever been a time in history where a small group of developers could get greenlit for an exceptionally high profile title. You start small. Maybe you're 5th Cell and you make mobile games until you're stable enough to graduate to DS. Maybe you start on the iPhone. Maybe you do console games, but instead of approaching big publishers with stars in your eyes, you find out if Majesco or Agetec will greenlight you for a title that is good ROI based on 20,000 copies sold. Maybe you release something on PC for free (!!!). Maybe you work on a licensed title. Maybe you do uncredited support work on another developer's project.

How you do get greenlit for a AAA game is to climb the ranks. Direct a few lower profile games and get bumped up the chain. Jordan Thomas just directed BioShock 2, and it's because he had a lot of 2nd tier positions over the last decade. Kamiya worked for Namco before moving to Capcom and doing a few second-tier roles before moving up to Director. Shinji Mikami did second tier stuff before directing--and the first directing gig he did get was based on a pitch that basically logically extended from an earlier title Capcom put out.

Consider Dark Void, which just came out in January. The game ended up being pretty bad by most accounts but it was greenlit and given a pretty decent HD generation budget and a huge amount of development time. Why? Because everyone involved with the project had previously worked on high-ish profile titles. You had veterans from FASA, you had internal Microsoft people. They worked their way up the chain, then formed their own company when they had the pedigree to get a deal.

Consider Chair Entertainment. The founders started the company after having released Advent Rising at their former company, which itself had mostly done artwork and promotional stuff before eventually making a game. Seeing a brighter future as an independent, the founders started Chair. Having worked with Orson Scott Card on Advent Rising, they knew him. They licensed his works. They licensed UE3 to work on 2d games. Epic was apparently suitably impressed with their potential despite their initial work (Undertow) being pretty underwhelming, so they got bought up. As a result, they now have access to substantially more resources and they ended up making probably the closest thing to a AAA game (in scope / budget) that console download services have had.

Rubin, on the other hand, acrimoniously left the industry and only returned years later. His first project since coming back was an edition of Snood. By all accounts he's got a small, modest team. I'm not sure why he thinks his team is well positioned to "deserve" a AAA contract just because he directed and shaped a AAA franchise 5+ years ago. That's no slight against him, just suggesting that he really needs to get all of his ducks in a row in terms of manpower and in terms of demonstrating that his new team has what it takes. That's how you do it as an indie. I'm sure he'd be able to get a mid-top creative job at any number of established developers or publishers based on his personal record, but if he wants to stay outside all that, he's going to have to prove his mettle again.

So essentially your point is that once you break up a team those people will either go back to working up from 2D games to get a shot at a 3D console game like "Chair Entertainment", or they spend 4 years hooking up with a third-party publisher like Airtight did with Capcom and end up shipping a game like Dark Void that is NOT a critical hit like their last game before they got broken up and commercially the game is likely a commercial failure?

Rubin along with Gavin sold Naughty Dog to Sony, they hung around for a couple of Jak games before transitioning the management to Wells, it's not like it was really acrimonious or anything.

 

[Stumpokapow]

This ties in with Pachter's comments about 90% of all game development being done in-house within the big publishers; imagine if 50% of all titles in the Billboard Hot 100 were by the same artist, 40% by another, and 10% by everyone else. And then imagine that the only way to really compete with these artists was to have your title on the Hot 100. (I'm stretching the analogy, but as with most business models the comparison doesn't work at the fine level.)

I think a more accurate term might be "publisher (or developer) diversity". My argument concerns more competition than most anything else.

50% of all titles in the Billboard Hot 100 are done by the same artist, at least on an annual basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Luke

But it's irrelevant because anyone sensible enough to have tastes that extend beyond the exact same thing over and over and over again is sensible enough to find music that extends beyond the exact same thing over and over and over again.

Just like with films, games appear to be adopting the studio model; a few monolithic studios internally develop the vast majority of smash hits as well as buying publishing rights for a lot of middle tier outside developed stuff. Independent developers find independent financing, make their work on the cheap, and raise their visibility. If that contents them, they continue at it. If it doesn't, they work their way towards a studio gig. Music is the same way; the same few major publishing labels publish virtually all commercial music, but they have different imprints for different sorts of music and the same crew that publishes Britney Spears (Jive; an imprint of Sony) also publishes Black Sabbath (Epic; an imprint of Sony) and Celine Dion (Columbia; an imprint of Sony).

I'm not worried about creative or commercial diversity at all. Not even a little bit. There has never been a point in my life where there haven't been developers ranging from huge to tiny all demonstrating ongoing commercial viability. If anything, it's more viable to be independent now because most of the lower tier opportunities don't require a publisher at all (iPhone, WiiWare, even retail on the DS for larger independents). We've lost a ton of the old guard of publishers but we've gained new ones; Valcon, UFO, XSeed, and other tiny seemingly financially improbable publishers are doing just fine.

*shrugs*

As Rubin specified, his argument regards only people who have produced good high(ish)-tier games in the past, but, for some reason or another, find themselves without a team. Here it appears that the gaming industry is reluctant to finance these developers as an independent studio, and so it seems that a few rungs are missing from the ladder.

That's Rubin's fault.

Dude walked out on gaming after complaining about developer appreciation. Went into multimedia and social media. Did his own thing for five years. Now he's back, good for him... but if he can't get a gig now, it's because he opted out of the flow. An actor can't go without acting for 5 years and show up sans agent and wonder when his multi-picture deal is going to be approved. Comebacks take time and effort.

I can't think of any industry for which it's true that important but not seminal personnel can walk away from the industry for half a decade and then show up again and start out on top. This isn't a case of a Steve Jobs that walked out, did his own thing, and was eventually vindicated; this is a case of a guy who just left.

If he wants to get back on the train, Snood isn't the way to do it.

 

[gerg]

50% of all titles in the Billboard Hot 100 are done by the same artist, at least on an annual basis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Luke

I was referring to the singers, rather than the songwriters. In any case, I may still be wrong.

However, looking at the UK Big Top 40 (which, iirc counts both digital downloads and retail sales), over twenty artists are represented.

Just like with films, games appear to be adopting the studio model; a few monolithic studios internally develop the vast majority of smash hits as well as buying publishing rights for a lot of middle tier outside developed stuff. Independent developers find independent financing, make their work on the cheap, and raise their visibility. If that contents them, they continue at it. If it doesn't, they work their way towards a studio gig. Music is the same way; the same few major publishing labels publish virtually all commercial music, but they have different imprints for different sorts of music and the same crew that publishes Britney Spears (Jive; an imprint of Sony) also publishes Black Sabbath (Epic; an imprint of Sony) and Celine Dion (Columbia; an imprint of Sony).

But, as I've said, I think that competition is the main difference between these industries and the gaming industry. In film, Duncan Jones can still direct and release Moon for $5 million and compete, perhaps indirectly, with various other sci-fi films of greater and larger budget. And, of course, it's only fair that those other films may sell much more than him. But the point is that he can still compete and profit.

Can a mid-tier developer release a game that competes directly with Modern Warfare 2 at a lower budget, and still turn a profit? I don't think so. (And, of course, it's like asking if anyone can compete with Avatar without spending $300 million and twelve years to develop the necessary technology. The difference, of course, is that whereas the values that propelled Avatar is very much an exception within the film industry, I think that they're much more the par for the gaming industry.)

I'm not worried about creative or commercial diversity at all. Not even a little bit.

In a sense, nor am I. I don't think there's anything wrong, intrinsically, with the blockbuster model; I only think that gaming is too small to adopt it at the moment.

There has never been a point in my life where there haven't been developers ranging from huge to tiny all demonstrating ongoing commercial viability. If anything, it's more viable to be independent now because most of the lower tier opportunities don't require a publisher at all (iPhone, WiiWare, even retail on the DS for larger independents).

Perhaps, but this line of thought seems to rely on the goodwill from the big publishers not to compete in those areas as well. EA and Playfish suggest otherwise.

We've lost a ton of the old guard of publishers but we've gained new ones; Valcon, UFO, XSeed, and other tiny seemingly financially improbable publishers are doing just fine.

But are they, by and in large, producing the same types of games as the old guard?

That's Rubin's fault.

Dude walked out on gaming after acrimoniously burning as many bridges as possible complaining about developer appreciation. Went into multimedia and social media. Did his own thing for five years. If he can't get a gig now, it's because he opted out of the flow. An actor can't go without acting for 5 years and show up sans agent and wonder when his multi-picture deal is going to be approved. Comebacks take time and effort.

I can't think of any industry for which it's true that important but not seminal personnel can walk away from the industry for half a decade and then show up again and start out on top. This isn't a case of a Steve Jobs that walked out, did his own thing, and was eventually vindicated; this is a case of a guy who just left.

If he wants to get back on the train, Snood isn't the way to do it.

Did you mean to quote me here, or Kittonwy?

In any case, the central thought experiment isn't to do with whether or not someone like Rubin could get back into gaming, but if people like the core developers at Naughty Dog could break up tomorrow, disband their team, and find a handful of publishers willing to court them and let them start a new independent development studio.

 

[rollingstart]

That's Rubin's fault.

Dude walked out on gaming after complaining about developer appreciation. Went into multimedia and social media. Did his own thing for five years. Now he's back, good for him... but if he can't get a gig now, it's because he opted out of the flow. An actor can't go without acting for 5 years and show up sans agent and wonder when his multi-picture deal is going to be approved. Comebacks take time and effort.

I can't think of any industry for which it's true that important but not seminal personnel can walk away from the industry for half a decade and then show up again and start out on top. This isn't a case of a Steve Jobs that walked out, did his own thing, and was eventually vindicated; this is a case of a guy who just left.

If he wants to get back on the train, Snood isn't the way to do it.

ok, think about a popular recent situation in films where this has happen. It is only a single case and I'm not saying it is for everyone, but James Cameron's situation is basically that. 1997 he released Titantic, it was a huge hit (to say the least) and then he went off and did other things. There was that TV show, some documentaries, and so on. I'm not sure of the exact date when production began, but Avatar is released in 2009, 10+ years after the last "blockbuster" film he's done and again is very successful (again, an understatement).

 

[Mael]

ok, think about a popular recent situation in films where this has happen. It is only a single case and I'm not saying it is for everyone, but James Cameron's situation is basically that. 1997 he released Titantic, it was a huge hit (to say the least) and then he went off and did other things. There was that TV show, some documentaries, and so on. I'm not sure of the exact date when production began, but Avatar is released in 2009, 10+ years after the last "blockbuster" film he's done and again is very successful (again, an understatement).

so you're saying if Miyamoto went off for 5 years, publishers would greenlight his games?

 

[rollingstart]

so you're saying if Miyamoto went off for 5 years, publishers would greenlight his games?

No, because I said up there the Cameron's case could have been rare. I'm by no means that read up on this. I'm just saying it could have been fuel for Rubin's arguement.

 

[Digital-Hero]

Jason Rubin has real force of conviction, which is probably what has made him so successful.

Or a real source of arrogance. He firmly believes his opinion is absolute while pushing others aside. That threw up a red flag for me. This has nothing to do with his previous achievements.

 

[Mael]

No, because I said up there the Cameron's case could have been rare. I'm by no means that read up on this. I'm just saying it could have been fuel for Rubin's arguement.

That's basically what happened with Will Wright.
I mean he did the Sims that got milked to kingdom come then his NEXT project was Spore.
I mean he basically did jackshit beteen the two.

I can tell you that Avatar got done because of Cameron, if it was Michael Bay with a 5 year gap reviewers wouldn't cry about how crap the Avatar games are since it would never have been made in the 1rst place.

We can quite agree that that Rubin guy is NOT Will Wright, Miyamoto or another high profile director!

Heck look at Ancel for X's sake, he's certainly not getting a blank check for his projects.
If Rubin had any sense, he'd actually not be that reliant on publishers to make his giant visionnary game.
After all if he really made Naughty Dog, he certainly has the business acumen to start another similar structure.

 

[Stumpokapow]

ok, think about a popular recent situation in films where this has happen. It is only a single case and I'm not saying it is for everyone, but James Cameron's situation is basically that. 1997 he released Titantic, it was a huge hit (to say the least) and then he went off and did other things. There was that TV show, some documentaries, and so on. I'm not sure of the exact date when production began, but Avatar is released in 2009, 10+ years after the last "blockbuster" film he's done and again is very successful (again, an understatement).

Absolutely, there are examples of this. Seminal authors do this as well. If J.K. Rowling waits ten years before she writes another book, she'll still get a multimillion pound advance.

On the other hand, if Jonathan Safran Foer or Douglas Coupland or another author who is successful but not multi-billion-dollar-successful walks away for a few decades, they probably wouldn't have the same kind of leeway.

You see it more often with actors and musicians than directors, frankly.

Can a mid-tier developer release a game that competes directly with Modern Warfare 2 at a lower budget, and still turn a profit? I don't think so. (And, of course, it's like asking if anyone can compete with Avatar without spending $300 million and twelve years to develop the necessary technology. The difference, of course, is that whereas the values that propelled Avatar is very much an exception within the film industry, I think that they're much more the par for the gaming industry.)

It sort of depends on what you consider "compete with" to mean. Starbreeze released The Darkness, Monolith released Condemned 1 and 2, Section 8 just got released... Metro 2033 is about to be released. There's budget stuff like Shellshock and Soldier of Fortune which were both terrible games but apparently justified their production costs. Rebellion just released Aliens vs Predator. On the PC, stuff like Necrovision and Cryostasis comes out every year, profitably.

There's no shortage of single player / multiplayer FPS games. I could repeat the same comparison for third person shooters or open world sandbox games or whatever else. I'm not sure how many of those projects were profitable and how many weren't, but it seems to me that low budget stuff that's under the same umbrella as blockbuster stuff. It appears to be in what I'd assume is direct competition, and it appears to work well enough that it continues to be made.

Did you mean to quote me here, or Kittonwy?

Kittonwy is on my ignore list, along with most of the other terrible posters on GAF. If you'd like a copy of my ignore list feel free to PM me, makes the forums a much better place.

I mentioned that to you because I think there's a danger of paying more attention to Rubin's specific experience than the general trend of the industry. His experiences are not the rule of people leaving major developers or publishers to strike out on their own.

In any case, the central thought experiment isn't to do with whether or not someone like Rubin could get back into gaming, but if people like the core developers at Naughty Dog could break up tomorrow, disband their team, and find a handful of publishers willing to court them and let them start a new independent development studio.

I absolutely believe that they could. Mainly because this kind of thing has happened a half-dozen times this generation. 1) Certain Affinity splintered off from Bungie and got a ton of gigs in their first five years. 2) Airtight, like I said, splintered off FASA. 3) The BioShock team split into two with both halves getting their own 2K studios. 4) Chair spun off, like I mentioned. 5) Eat Sleep Play and Lightbox Interactive both spun off of Incognito Entertainment--which functionally folded--and got contracts with Sony. 6) Propaganda spun off from EA Canada and walked into a deal with Disney. 7) EA formed Armature Studio for a handful of senior creative personnel from Retro Studios. 8) Platinum Games got a 4+ game deal with Sega after the key members from Clover formed the studio when Clover got shut down. 9) Sakurai walked from HAL, started a holding company, and a few years later Nintendo gave him his own studio. 10) tri-Crescendo is a spinoff company of tri-Ace that initially got sound design contracts for a few years until eventually they got to do their own games, of which Fragile and Eternal Sonata are two you might recognize. 11) Key folks from the Henry Hatsworth team at EA walked and formed DreamRift. They haven't announced what publisher if any they're going to work with, but I'll bet dollars to donuts they get one no problem. 12) Yuji Naka left Sega and formed Prope and got a publishing deal with Sega despite the fact that his game was pretty much the least commercially viable project greenlit in the last decade...

... how many examples does it take? That's a dozen from the last decade where name list people walked away from their major studios and were given / allowed to form studios to make the games they wanted.

To say nothing of the fact that Bungie as a company basically decided "okay, we want our independence" and literally bought themselves out from Microsoft... and they'll have a publisher for life because no product they put their name on is going to be denied a publisher.

 

[Fafalada]

well the problem with PC market is that every publisher has their own store.

Everyone wants a larger piece of the pie - still, lots of online stuff gets different operator/publishers outside of original dev/pub's home country.

it is just almost impossible to track. I doubt bulk of PC revenue comes from Korea though

There are firms that do research on this, but like I said, you mostly get global territory figures, not so much individual titles. And you're right of course, Korea is just one country.

 

[Kintaro]

Or a real source of arrogance. He firmly believes his opinion is absolute while pushing others aside. That threw up a red flag for me. This has nothing to do with his previous achievements.

I don't believe this is true.

However, who on this show would have ever been in the position to say otherwise based on their experience in the industry? None of them. We have heard it time and time again by those people who started in the press then moved to companies; development is a whole different ballgame. Given that, why would you take their opinion seriously when they honestly have no way of knowing because they've never been that deep inside?

 

[Punchy4486]

Geoff is the dean of games journalism? How did this get started?

When he crowned himself as such...

 

[Digital-Hero]

When he crowned himself as such...

I thought he earned that by sticking up for Mass Effect on the Sex Box Fox News scandal? :lol

 

[Y2Kev]

yeah I think he started calling himself that

 

[Stumpokapow]

to be fair, "dean of games journalism" is just a parody of "dean of american rock critics" which was also a self-assigned title

not that I expect the majority of GTTV's audience would appreciate that reference

 

[captscience]

... how many examples does it take? That's a dozen from the last decade where name list people walked away from their major studios and were given / allowed to form studios to make the games they wanted.

Rubin isn't trying to make that argument, and those that are aren't paying attention. Rubin was saying that people leaving and forming new teams aren't able to get monstrous $60 million budgets to create new properties.

Besides, it seems that just about everyone is focusing on the trees and not the forest. The more important part of Rubin's theory is the point that due to massive concurrent layoffs, combined with the general difficulty of securing large budgets will result in diminished diversity in AAA titles. Hard to argue with that.

 

[conman]

Diversity is an inaccurate word, because I agree, in a sense, that gaming today is just as diverse as it ever was. There's lots of diverse business models and lots of different genres. My problem, however, is that diversity has been lost within the triple AAA "genre", so to speak. And I don't mean this in the sense that all the games are the same thematically - you're always going to have some games being more popular than others - but that they're published or developed by the same people. This ties in with Pachter's comments about 90% of all game development being done in-house within the big publishers; imagine if 50% of all titles in the Billboard Hot 100 were by the same artist, 40% by another, and 10% by everyone else. And then imagine that the only way to really compete with these artists was to have your title on the Hot 100. (I'm stretching the analogy, but as with most business models the comparison doesn't work at the fine level.)

I think a more accurate term might be "publisher (or developer) diversity". My argument concerns more competition than most anything else.

Your analogy to the music industry is an interesting one. If you look at music publishing, things really aren't all that different from the games industry and the recent past of both industries looks very similar. In the nineties, music publishers went through a massive process of consolidation and bought up nearly every "indie" label they could. Media corporations consolidated all the major music conduits (radio and television). The only difference is that the music industry hit its "crisis moment" a couple of years ago, while the gaming industry is just on the verge.

As a result of the massive consolidation of the music industry, people's listening habits have changed enormously. I'm of the opinion that ready (and cheap/free/pirated) access to music is the result of industry consolidation, not the other way around--as the music industry claims. The gaming industry is now facing the same possible outcome. Cheap, free, pirated, and "casual" gaming is poised to undermine the monolithic and massively consolidated big gaming publishers.

Rubin's absolutely correct in one sense: publishers have backed themselves into a corner by focusing more and more on bigger and bigger hits. They're forcing themselves to make more expensive and fewer games, all while constantly buying up (and bleeding dry) smaller development studios. It's unsustainable without allowing for well-funded and innovative talent to enter into the mix. In that sense, Rubin's absolutely correct.

Perhaps, but I don't think that the argument has ever been that someone with large ideas should be able to walk out of university and be put in charge of a large project. I agree that you need to work your way up the corporate ladder, but not everyone's career history is so ideal. As Rubin specified, his argument regards only people who have produced good high(ish)-tier games in the past, but, for some reason or another, find themselves without a team. Here it appears that the gaming industry is reluctant to finance these developers as an independent studio, and so it seems that a few rungs are missing from the ladder.

A lot of what Rubin was talking about in his blog post seemed to be about personal freedom. Unless I am misrepresenting him, his concern seemed to be that, even if you join a pre-existing team in a publisher, you won't be given the same opportunity for risk and creativity that you would if you are given the chance to build your own team that works independently.

What I found interesting in the Bonus Round discussion was that the counter examples were all Japanese. The reason? Japanese developers operate much more according to "auteurism." I'm not saying they've got the more talented leads (some of you may disagree), but in Japan, they're much more likely to give those lead designers the credit (for what is actually the work of their team). Of course, it's worth noting that their gaming industry is in serious trouble, but for totally different reasons (perhaps for the opposite reason of having too great a "diversity" rather than too little).

In the West, we seem to want to give credit to as many people as possible. That's great from a personal gratification standpoint. All of those people deserve credit. But it means that when a studio is dissolved, there's no figurehead to carry a team with him/her to another studio. No recognizable leader to give funding to. And no sense of a reliable, profitable, successful development lead (with a reliable, profitable, successful crew in tow). There has been a lot of back and forth over the last few years about "auteurism" in the gaming industry, but this seems like one particular instance where that might be productive and useful to the health of the industry.

Also, the comparison to the old "studio system" of 1930s-1950s Hollywood could be instructive. What killed that system was two things: 1) over-consolidation of distribution, exhibition, and production, and 2) the terrifying fear of the advent of cheap and free television broadcasts. The gaming industry is facing similar problems (over-consolidation and the advent of run-away cheap alternatives like iPhone and Facebook games). What saved Hollywood? The rise of independent filmmaking and a complete overhaul and diversification of the industry (of course, now Hollywood is pretty much back in the same predicament it was back in the 1950s and for many of the exact same reasons).

I've heard some folks in the industry make some interesting suggestions on how to "fix" things. One was a call to make most development talent freelance/contract work. Rather than being dependent on the solvency and stability of a single studio, they'd be free within the marketplace to work various temporary positions. This is exactly the solution that the film industry turned to in the 1960s, and still works that way today. The other advantage to this is that it would increase the culture of "auteurism" by giving credit to individuals and teams rather than to specific studios and/or publishers. (How many people recognize Scorcese's name rather than his production company's?)

The bummer is that it will take the experience of a real industry "crisis" to force people to make those substantial changes. They won't happen on their own. If the industry is consolidating and contracting (on the AAA end of the industry) too much, it's bound to come to a climactic head sooner or later. It's inevitable that the industry's on the verge of some big changes (for better or worse), but what isn't inevitable is that we'll keep seeing the major technological/creative jumps on a regular basis that we've gotten used to over the past twenty years (again, only speaking about the AAA business).

 

[Nirolak]

I absolutely believe that they could. Mainly because this kind of thing has happened a half-dozen times this generation. 1) Certain Affinity splintered off from Bungie and got a ton of gigs in their first five years. 2) Airtight, like I said, splintered off FASA. 3) The BioShock team split into two with both halves getting their own 2K studios. 4) Chair spun off, like I mentioned. 5) Eat Sleep Play and Lightbox Interactive both spun off of Incognito Entertainment--which functionally folded--and got contracts with Sony. 6) Propaganda spun off from EA Canada and walked into a deal with Disney. 7) EA formed Armature Studio for a handful of senior creative personnel from Retro Studios. 8) Platinum Games got a 4+ game deal with Sega after the key members from Clover formed the studio when Clover got shut down. 9) Sakurai walked from HAL, started a holding company, and a few years later Nintendo gave him his own studio. 10) tri-Crescendo is a spinoff company of tri-Ace that initially got sound design contracts for a few years until eventually they got to do their own games, of which Fragile and Eternal Sonata are two you might recognize. 11) Key folks from the Henry Hatsworth team at EA walked and formed DreamRift. They haven't announced what publisher if any they're going to work with, but I'll bet dollars to donuts they get one no problem. 12) Yuji Naka left Sega and formed Prope and got a publishing deal with Sega despite the fact that his game was pretty much the least commercially viable project greenlit in the last decade...

... how many examples does it take? That's a dozen from the last decade where name list people walked away from their major studios and were given / allowed to form studios to make the games they wanted.

To say nothing of the fact that Bungie as a company basically decided "okay, we want our independence" and literally bought themselves out from Microsoft... and they'll have a publisher for life because no product they put their name on is going to be denied a publisher.

There was also a great new example of this on Gamasutra as well.

Apparently four people made a prototype for Darksiders and managed to sell it to THQ, who not only built them a studio to make Darksiders, but also, after only a year of owning them (2007), put them in charge of the Warhammer 40K MMO, which is what THQ considers to quite possibly be their biggest project: http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/27323/DICE_2010_Darksiders_Creators_Find_Success_In_Chaos.php

 

[Stumpokapow]

Rubin isn't trying to make that argument, and those that are aren't paying attention. Rubin was saying that people leaving and forming new teams aren't able to get monstrous $60 million budgets to create new properties.

And my point was:
a) Yes, they are able to get big budgets and almost all of those examples prove it.
b) Even if they weren't able to get big budgets, they can just as easily work their way up the ladder as a studio.

Besides, it seems that just about everyone is focusing on the trees and not the forest. The more important part of Rubin's theory is the point that due to massive concurrent layoffs, combined with the general difficulty of securing large budgets will result in diminished diversity in AAA titles. Hard to argue with that.

If AAA refers to quality, there are plenty of AAA lower budget and indie titles. If AAA refers to profile, who gives a shit what's #1 on the charts as long as the stuff that debuts at #100 is still profitable enough to be made? Frankly, I don't care if Dudebro #43893821923 has heard of World of Goo, the developers just got stinkin' rich off making the game and it's clear other developers can follow in their footsteps, so where's the beef?

The same is true for films. Gerg mentions that Moon and Avatar can co-exist. So can Shadow Complex and inFamous--or perhaps more importantly, Two Worlds and Oblivion.

 

[conman]

If AAA refers to quality, there are plenty of AAA lower budget and indie titles. If AAA refers to profile, who gives a shit what's #1 on the charts as long as the stuff that debuts at #100 is still profitable enough to be made?

Neither. Properly speaking, "AAA" is a short-hand business term that refers to the overall budget (and presumed higher profits). It's a strange thing for Rubin (and gamers) to attach so much importance to.

Yes, many talented developers would love to have big budgets to make big games for big audiences. But many other talented developers probably don't care so long as they can keep doing what they're doing in the way that they want to do it and still make a living doing it.

 

[Kintaro]

Neither. Properly speaking, "AAA" is a short-hand business term that refers to the overall budget (and presumed higher profits). It's a strange thing for Rubin (and gamers) to attach so much importance to.

The entire industry attaches importance to it at this point in the game. That's why this edition of Bonus Round was made. That's why EA fired 1,500 employees and shuttered studios. That's why Activision did the same. So on and so forth. The entire industry (devs, pubs, and even the press) has trained gamers to flock from game to game in the hunt for the AAA experience and now, if they don't provide it, you're left in the dust (unless you're name is Nintendo who is the only one making AAA games on smaller budgets outside of the social gaming space).

It's an environment of their own doing.