-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Kotaku: "We Need Better Video Game Publishers" [Update: David Jaffe Responds]
- Thread starter Deitus
- Start date
CrunchyFrog
Member
I'm saying that the way publishers are operating is short-sighted in regards to the industry as a whole. It's not that romantic and actually quite fiscally sound, but it's effects are not as tangible or immediate. If they want to be making money in the long-run instead of following the current boom-bust trend, they'd do far better to focus on at least a slightly greater degree of risk taking and fostering of diversity. It may mean not being as immediately profitable or at the top end of money earners in the industry, but it ensures long-term stability. Unfortunately that doesn't make shareholders as much money, which is IMO a huge failing of public trading.
BlastProcessing
Member
CosmicQueso
Member
I completely agree. Digital is changing the paradigm, and many developers are finding these new ways of bringing their games to market. Some publishers are adapting and placing bets in the digital/more indie space too. And with new platforms like the OUYA (despite anyone's feelings on the device itself, the model is interesting) and the release of the steambox and perhaps integrated gaming platforms into smart TVs, markets that never existed before do now and will exist in the future so that devs will not be forced to follow the model.
I'd argue that the dev/pub model is less forced today than it ever has been.
Also agree, that's the balancing act. Some publishers "get" this, others don't. Not unlike any other market, really.
A pithy response at best. A business' sole purpose to exist is to generate return for those who invest in it so long as it does so lawfully and by means deemed appropriate by those investors. It serves no other ethical purpose. None.
Businesses exist to create value. It is vitally important to make that distinction.
Video game companies exist to create value for video game consumers.
I mustn't have been around for the days when Kotaku sucked.
They're actually my go to videogame site these days. IGN is now a Sony PR Tool, Eurogamer isn't as good as it used it be and I only use them now for the DF comparisons, 1UP is a shell, and almost all the others I've tried on GAF recommendations were generally just horribly laid out and unreadable websites.
Kotaku AU is really really good, and I also like that Kotaku don't score their reviews.
This piece wasn't bad. Obviously very one sided and wouldn't be the case for aaaaaaallllll games, but still, a good read.
They're actually my go to videogame site these days. IGN is now a Sony PR Tool, Eurogamer isn't as good as it used it be and I only use them now for the DF comparisons, 1UP is a shell, and almost all the others I've tried on GAF recommendations were generally just horribly laid out and unreadable websites.
Kotaku AU is really really good, and I also like that Kotaku don't score their reviews.
This piece wasn't bad. Obviously very one sided and wouldn't be the case for aaaaaaallllll games, but still, a good read.
HP_Wuvcraft
Banned
Well, he's kind of right when he says we're the publishers of Kickstarted games.
We have the option of pulling our pledges for shit we don't like. We have got them to take stuff out (such as DLC and "social features") because we caused a ruckus. Female main characters in Torment? Not on our watch (even though, thank God, nobody actually pulled pledges over that).
We have the option of pulling our pledges for shit we don't like. We have got them to take stuff out (such as DLC and "social features") because we caused a ruckus. Female main characters in Torment? Not on our watch (even though, thank God, nobody actually pulled pledges over that).
NoirVisage
Banned
It is a well written article, just on something i don't agree with, far from a reason to HATE Kotaku, the new guy is definitely turning things around in that respect.
CosmicQueso
Member
The only time that's true is when the consumers are those who fund the business (ie a government or other tax supported venture).
In any case, totally not arguing the purpose of a business here.
SaggyMonkey
Member
This isn't really a binary thing. Both things are true that publishers could improve, and studios could be better at negotiating for their own welfare.
Version 3.0
Member
Excuse me, sir, but I don't think that's much of an argument. Are you seriously saying that there should be no attempt made to change bad situations? Especially when, as in this case, the improvement would be in every party's best interest?
Complaining can serve a purpose, you know. I would hope this article itself might shed a little light, and maybe, just maybe, a publisher might read it and reconsider their own focus group methods, and examine whether their handling of their own development studios might be having an adverse impact on the final product's marketability. It might have a positive impact, however small.
I doubt you shouting "There's nothing that can be done, just live with it!" will.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Right but this is really the heart of my point. The real power lies not with the developer OR the publisher. The actual power lies with the consumer and the consumer shows time and again- speaking specifically about the retail AAA space- that they don't care about the things many of the folks reading GAF (or making games) care about. And that is why for MANY games there are many publishers that can make pro publisher/anti dev deals: because there is no reason to be pro dev unless the dev has shown value above and beyond getting the product shipped.
The problem I have is people think I am saying I LIKE THIS. I am not saying that. I wish the buying public en large cared more about the things hard core gamers did. But they have showed thus far- at least at 40-60 price points- that they don't.
And I am just saying: THIS IS HOW IT IS. And as a developer that wants to succeed I am ok with the fact that the burden is ON US (the developer) to get to work in figuring out ways to show unique value that the customer (and thus the publisher) finds important (read: financially important) enough that we can demand (because we are worth) better deals.
David
I see where you're coming from David, but I would imagine that some developers are likely never given the chance to shine. It's pretty hard to negotiate a better contract considering the state of the industry. I'm sure many developers are just happy to have a job, even if it means they have no opportunity to stand out.
What do you think can change this dynamic, or can it change at all? Is it something that simply will be how it is, and that's it? Why not unionize? Or get a guild like other entertainment industries?
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
But you are not offering any actual solves, unless I am missing it.
Offer a way for a developer to bring more value to the negotiating table and many of us devs will perk up our ears. But telling a publisher they should feel bad because they don't make deals that favor the dev more when the publishers do not have to because the consumer time and again has shown that 'good enough is good enough' is simply fantasy land time, sir.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Game consumers need to show they value amazing developers and/or new IP over amazing brands (even if the latest iterations of said brand are 'meh') and it will change. And that will change and is changing as game prices come down and digital distribution takes over. But I don't think it will ever change enough if we are talking about 40-60 dollar purchases for it to change publisher thinking.
Unionization wouldn't fix it, because unions also practice blacklisting. Also, the people at the top would be elected in / established as the leaders of it, and you're back at the square one problem of the industry being a heavily intertwined old boys club.
Version 3.0
Member
Not a comment on that stance, but the MS does stand for Microsoft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Msnbc
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
a- I never said they should not be ALLOWED. I said keep in mind the source.
b- Pardon me for living in 2013 and not blindly trusting 'news organizations' that are part of multi BILLION corporations will always put truthful reporting ahead of their parent company's bottom line.
PatientRain
Member
When I read this piece on Kotaku, my first thought was: I need to post a comment; this is ridiculous. My second thought: I wonder if this found its way to GAF? And it did, and (incidentally) with the post from Jaffe it's a better, more interesting piece. Take note, Kotaku.
As for the piece itself:
The headline frustrates me: We deserve better. We, gamers? Or we, game devs? We, gamers, buy games and we should get what we pay for; the only thing we deserve in that tranacaction is what the publishers says we're going to get in the purchases. Then this business, We Need Better Video Game Publishers? Don't you really mean 'I need money from investors with no strings attached'? And in the ten or so paragraphs that follow, don't you mean 'I'm dissatisfied with the level of success in my career so far, and I'd best find fault with external forces outside my control, becuase personal responsibility is too difficult to accept.'
The anonymous byline, for a fluffy editorial piece, drives me nuts: generalizations about the industry from the voice of a purported ten-year insider, whose most substantive contributions to the argument take the form of ad hominem attack, don't move me to support a revolution. The piece as a whole moves me to do nothing more than I already do: namely, to try to buy games thoughtfully, avoid the ones I think will disappoint, and give up on the ones that do, despite my best efforts. Becuase, as I said, the only thing I deserve is what I'm told will be in the package when I purchase it. Likewise, the only thing a dev deserves is what they agree to in their contract.
What I don't deserve is a preachy piece of tiresome griping and sour grapes by someone without the courage to give a name to their opinion.
Bravo, Kotaku, on nearly 50k in page views. Journalism, not so much.
As for the piece itself:
The headline frustrates me: We deserve better. We, gamers? Or we, game devs? We, gamers, buy games and we should get what we pay for; the only thing we deserve in that tranacaction is what the publishers says we're going to get in the purchases. Then this business, We Need Better Video Game Publishers? Don't you really mean 'I need money from investors with no strings attached'? And in the ten or so paragraphs that follow, don't you mean 'I'm dissatisfied with the level of success in my career so far, and I'd best find fault with external forces outside my control, becuase personal responsibility is too difficult to accept.'
The anonymous byline, for a fluffy editorial piece, drives me nuts: generalizations about the industry from the voice of a purported ten-year insider, whose most substantive contributions to the argument take the form of ad hominem attack, don't move me to support a revolution. The piece as a whole moves me to do nothing more than I already do: namely, to try to buy games thoughtfully, avoid the ones I think will disappoint, and give up on the ones that do, despite my best efforts. Becuase, as I said, the only thing I deserve is what I'm told will be in the package when I purchase it. Likewise, the only thing a dev deserves is what they agree to in their contract.
What I don't deserve is a preachy piece of tiresome griping and sour grapes by someone without the courage to give a name to their opinion.
Bravo, Kotaku, on nearly 50k in page views. Journalism, not so much.
Version 3.0
Member
In the example given, supposedly the publisher's interference was the main factor in the game performing poorly at retail, yes? So it would be in a publisher's best interest to take note of that, and at least change the nature of their involvement. I see nothing wrong with a publisher sticking their nose into what they're spending money on provided they know what they're doing.
If a publisher doesn't understand the market, then they'd be better served to hire someone (perhaps an experienced, successful developer) to help with the nose-sticking duties.
Version 3.0
Member
I said, "no comment" on that stance. I don't know much about msnbc. I have no idea if they have any bias in regard to Microsoft or its competitors. I was simply refuting the claim here that you were wrong about what the MS stands for. It does stand for Microsoft.
What I find interesting (no idea if it was covered): Nintendo's relationship with external studios, in contrast with pretty much everybody else.
Nintendo contracted Monster Games, a tiny studio with less than a dozen employees in Northfield, Minnesota, back in 2005 or something, to develop Excite Truck, a Wii launch title. I guess that game did OK, it probably sold kinda OK, but it certainly didn't reach any usual Metacritic threshold. But it seems Nintendo doesn't care. Failure or not, after Excite Truck, they've contracted Monster to do Excite Bots. That game bombed so hard it wasn't even released in Europe. But Nintendo obviously didn't give two shits and gave them the Pilotwings IP. Yes, Pilotwings Resort didn't do well, either, but Nintendo didn't break with the studio: They gave them Donkey Kong.
Another example: Before Nintendo bought Monolith, they've contracted them to do Disaster. That game really was a disaster - it tanked. Hard. It tanked so hard Nintendo didn't even release it in the US. It was a ton of fun, I personally loved it, but it really didn't do well. Next step: Nintendo outright bought Monolith and bankrolled Soma Bringer for DS. The best Diablo clone the DS has ever seen. It did OK I guess, but apparently not good enough to ever leave Japan. After Soma Bringer, Nintendo green lighted a mammoth project, Xenoblade, which took three years to complete. And that one didn't sell well, either. In this case, I'm really just talking sales - it is the highest rated and one of the most pirated JRPGs of all time. Still, it wasn't cheap, and I'm pretty sure it never made Nintendo any money. Not in itself. But what did Nintendo do? Close shop, like any other publisher would? No. They've opened a second studio and gave them money to expand.
And that's the main difference, something that directly ties into the OP, and the one thing that makes Nintendo different: If a game tanks, it's the publisher's fault. Nintendo never killed a studio because their game tanked. Because they realize, as publishers, that it's their fault - not the developer's fault.
Nintendo contracted Monster Games, a tiny studio with less than a dozen employees in Northfield, Minnesota, back in 2005 or something, to develop Excite Truck, a Wii launch title. I guess that game did OK, it probably sold kinda OK, but it certainly didn't reach any usual Metacritic threshold. But it seems Nintendo doesn't care. Failure or not, after Excite Truck, they've contracted Monster to do Excite Bots. That game bombed so hard it wasn't even released in Europe. But Nintendo obviously didn't give two shits and gave them the Pilotwings IP. Yes, Pilotwings Resort didn't do well, either, but Nintendo didn't break with the studio: They gave them Donkey Kong.
Another example: Before Nintendo bought Monolith, they've contracted them to do Disaster. That game really was a disaster - it tanked. Hard. It tanked so hard Nintendo didn't even release it in the US. It was a ton of fun, I personally loved it, but it really didn't do well. Next step: Nintendo outright bought Monolith and bankrolled Soma Bringer for DS. The best Diablo clone the DS has ever seen. It did OK I guess, but apparently not good enough to ever leave Japan. After Soma Bringer, Nintendo green lighted a mammoth project, Xenoblade, which took three years to complete. And that one didn't sell well, either. In this case, I'm really just talking sales - it is the highest rated and one of the most pirated JRPGs of all time. Still, it wasn't cheap, and I'm pretty sure it never made Nintendo any money. Not in itself. But what did Nintendo do? Close shop, like any other publisher would? No. They've opened a second studio and gave them money to expand.
And that's the main difference, something that directly ties into the OP, and the one thing that makes Nintendo different: If a game tanks, it's the publisher's fault. Nintendo never killed a studio because their game tanked. Because they realize, as publishers, that it's their fault - not the developer's fault.
Kind of ironic how you bitch about gamers seeming too entitled yet you do the exact same thing with kotaku.
Yeah, Kotaku sucks, but why are you so upset? Isn't this article in line with their quality?
Version 3.0
Member
I don't know if your logic quite follows - Nintendo's reasons for thing are often unclear, to say the least - but yes, it's nice that they're not a chopping block like other publishers.
On the other hand, it would be nice if they learned from those bombs and made a better attempt to market and sell those types of games. But I guess all the major publishers have games they've "sent to die".
BlastProcessing
Member
Thanks for clarifying. I think i understand where you are coming from now.
NoirVisage
Banned
two talking wolves address each other! There's a t-shirt idea in there somewhere :O
SenjutsuSage
Banned
I agree with Jaffe completely. It wouldn't surprise me in the slightest if this is written by a journalist that is trying to get more attention by posing as a game developer. And it also doesn't surprise me that there's a lot of unwarranted whining about how much better their game could have been if only the publisher wasn't in the way.
I agree with Jaffe on this.
I agree with Jaffe on this.
Jake Tower
Banned
There was never a Lightbox or SuperBot situation, so I guess they've learned? Nintendo supposedly doesn't do focus testing and shit - they do whatever they feel is right, and the audience is free to take it or leave it. That's the correct approach in my humble opinion. Yes, it means you won't get $100 million dollar projects from Nintendo, but it also means you won't get cookie cutter bullshit. I like and respect that.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Right, I understand. I was not suggesting you were saying I was wrong to be suspicious- just quoting your piece cause it also had the MS=Microsoft bit. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you- I was not
.David
D
Deleted member 30609
Unconfirmed Member
re: OP
Jaffe's response is very -- uh -- one-percenter.
Jaffe's response is very -- uh -- one-percenter.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Duckhuntdog
Member
Probably a bad analogy here but, this debate reminds me about the comic book industry and the artist/writers involved therein.
Having a few friends that work in comics, one usually starts out trying to get the best deal you can get to do it full-time. Being new, you probably aren't going to get the best deal out there but generally the publishers work with you. If you do well, hit your deadlines, and get some sales, more often than not, when your contract is up you can renegotiate on more favorable terms for you. You have proven yourself to be a commodity that the publisher is willing to invest in. Now say you happen to become a sensation and your writing/art helps a character or book sell tons of copies, when your contract comes up for renewal you can bet you can tailor your contract to benefit you greatly.
I think back to Todd McFarlane and his time at Marvel. I am sure when he started out, his contract wasn't overly favorable to him. But as he rose up and was able to make Spider-Man the huge hit due to his art, when his contract came up... well he clearly got a contract that was very favorable to him. I mean Marvel gave him his own Spider-Man book to write and draw. He had more or less free reign to do with as he pleased within the general limitations that Marvel gives you with a character. Todd's major beefs, AFAIK, were that Marvel didn't stand up to the CCA on certain panels, which either had to be redrawn or altered to tone down violence and how Marvel in general at that time did not give proper credit to the creators of characters. But Marvel saw the value in Todd, Jim and yes even Liefeld and offered them contracts that were probably fairly favorable to them.
Even today, Marvel and DC fight over talent they see as highly valuable and you can bet those writers/artists are able to negotiate contracts that are favorable to them. In short I guess what I am trying to say is that, the more valuable you/developer show you are to a company/publisher the more likely you are able to negotiate more favorable terms. I don't think Mark Waid's current contract is anything like what it was when he started.
I dunno, it all just seems similar to me. I could be fucking wrong.
Having a few friends that work in comics, one usually starts out trying to get the best deal you can get to do it full-time. Being new, you probably aren't going to get the best deal out there but generally the publishers work with you. If you do well, hit your deadlines, and get some sales, more often than not, when your contract is up you can renegotiate on more favorable terms for you. You have proven yourself to be a commodity that the publisher is willing to invest in. Now say you happen to become a sensation and your writing/art helps a character or book sell tons of copies, when your contract comes up for renewal you can bet you can tailor your contract to benefit you greatly.
I think back to Todd McFarlane and his time at Marvel. I am sure when he started out, his contract wasn't overly favorable to him. But as he rose up and was able to make Spider-Man the huge hit due to his art, when his contract came up... well he clearly got a contract that was very favorable to him. I mean Marvel gave him his own Spider-Man book to write and draw. He had more or less free reign to do with as he pleased within the general limitations that Marvel gives you with a character. Todd's major beefs, AFAIK, were that Marvel didn't stand up to the CCA on certain panels, which either had to be redrawn or altered to tone down violence and how Marvel in general at that time did not give proper credit to the creators of characters. But Marvel saw the value in Todd, Jim and yes even Liefeld and offered them contracts that were probably fairly favorable to them.
Even today, Marvel and DC fight over talent they see as highly valuable and you can bet those writers/artists are able to negotiate contracts that are favorable to them. In short I guess what I am trying to say is that, the more valuable you/developer show you are to a company/publisher the more likely you are able to negotiate more favorable terms. I don't think Mark Waid's current contract is anything like what it was when he started.
I dunno, it all just seems similar to me. I could be fucking wrong.
Jaffe, the issue is not as simple as you make it to be. It's not just about having a good enough portfolio to demand a sufficiently good contract. The relationship between developer and publisher is way too one-sided in terms of power and developers who aren't able to negotiate a sufficiently good contract do not "have themselves to blame", as many, many other factors go into the complex power relationship between developer and publisher.
You're basically making the "poor people only have themselves to blame" argument.
You're basically making the "poor people only have themselves to blame" argument.
davidjaffe
The Fucking MAN.
Not at all.
It's quite simple actually: if a publisher can find a good enough developer to make the kind of deal they want, they will. If they can't, they won't.
A developer who has to sign a shitty deal OR go out of business only have themselves to blame. OR they are brand new and need to prove themselves and in that case, ANY deal is a good enough deal. But a dev is not guaranteed the right to make video games anymore than a publisher is guaranteed that customers will show up to pay for the game the pubs have funded. As a DEV and a PUB: prove your worth on the market or go out of business. Period. It IS very simple.
And you suggesting the reason it is not as simple as I put it is because 'there are many,many other factors that go into the complex power relationship' without actually being specific about these factors doesn't help convince me otherwise.
David
SatelliteOfLove
Member
These two links are valuable to the discussion, in my opinion:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131
http://www.warhorsestudios.cz/index.php?page=blog&entry=blog_007
There it's too L I T T L E M O N E Y, not too much, though.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=459131
http://www.warhorsestudios.cz/index.php?page=blog&entry=blog_007
There it's too L I T T L E M O N E Y, not too much, though.
The purpose of business is absolutely the point. The breakdown in understanding the true purpose of business is responsible for a lot of the issues in publisher relationships.
Peter Drucker said:
In the long term successful publishers absolutely have to understand this.
Version 3.0
Member
Right, I understand. I was not suggesting you were saying I was wrong to be suspicious- just quoting your piece cause it also had the MS=Microsoft bit. Sorry if you thought I was attacking you- I was not
David
Fair enough.
It seems these days gaming development has turned into some kind of focused group nightmare.
As if the marketing agendas are created before the idea of the game itself is even realized, and that's the new priority. Everything else, the actual game, is just a series of metrics, and you can "add it on" to fulfill it, which creates chaos in the design/development phases. Every metric is broken down by cost. etcetc.
I think mark cerny said it best when he said developers and publishers need to embrace the chaos in the create/design phases, to run with ideas, not agendas.
As if the marketing agendas are created before the idea of the game itself is even realized, and that's the new priority. Everything else, the actual game, is just a series of metrics, and you can "add it on" to fulfill it, which creates chaos in the design/development phases. Every metric is broken down by cost. etcetc.
I think mark cerny said it best when he said developers and publishers need to embrace the chaos in the create/design phases, to run with ideas, not agendas.
CosmicQueso
Member
Semantics. Marketing and innovation provide the value that drives the return on investment. What you're saying is not in contrast to what I'm saying. You're just going into deeper detail.
Duckhuntdog
Member
True, but look at Secret Level, when not working with Nintendo their games tend to be mediocre.
So I suppose that when Nintendo is your publisher and you are willing to listen to them, you tend to get great results. But is it fair to say that Nintendo acts like other publishers? From your examples, they seem to be more of an exception. *shrug*
To be fair, Nintendo supposedly did focus testing once... to see what people thought of the NES. What Nintendo got was unanimous dislike of it. Needless to say, Nintendo ignored the focus testing and released the NES anyway to resounding success. I suppose the people running Nintendo still remember that attempt.
I want to disagree with you Jaffe but you make too much sense and I have zero experience on what a publisher/developer relationship really entails. You worked with them for years, have connections in the industry, and obviously you can school most of us in the subject just based on that. But I feel that publishers responsibility, besides minimizing losses-maximizing gains, as any company, should also be to broaden the offer available to their audiences, and I firmly believe that that would work to their own benefit in the long run. You can say that the audience seems to ask for the same ole same ole but if someone is spoon fed with burgers all their life they won't be very receptive to try sushi, a fine steak or a good soup when offered that.
I wanted other developers to step up and tell their opinion on this matter too (relationship between devs/pubs), as I feel that it is not that cut and dry as you Jaffe are making it out to be.
I wanted other developers to step up and tell their opinion on this matter too (relationship between devs/pubs), as I feel that it is not that cut and dry as you Jaffe are making it out to be.
Eric the Red
Member
I think there is something missing in David's - THIS IS BUSINESS - responses. It's not merely a matter of who has leverage in the contract, which it seems like 90% of the discussion is centering on. Maybe a publisher SHOULD have more oversight on certain projects, but, in practice, HOW they exercise that oversight can be out-of-touch and damaging. Things the OP cites such as the decision makers never touching a controller, making every game into a movie, etc. This is the sort of change that should be rallied behind.
Sony's been getting some goodwill from Gaf lately for comments like Yoshida saying they don't want every PS4 game to be a shooter, or reports of certain execs (can't recall which atm) that always insist on getting behind the controller before a game is released. Publishers need to replace their decision makers with ones that are more effective.
Sony's been getting some goodwill from Gaf lately for comments like Yoshida saying they don't want every PS4 game to be a shooter, or reports of certain execs (can't recall which atm) that always insist on getting behind the controller before a game is released. Publishers need to replace their decision makers with ones that are more effective.