The Sky Is Rising « VG247 Forum

VG247 Forum » The VG247 forum

The Sky Is Rising

(15 posts)

Started 1 year ago by freedoms_stain
Latest reply from DSB

freedoms_stain
Moderator

The Entertainment Industry is in crisis, you know it, I know it, everybody knows it! According to Them nobody pays for anything anymore! And obviously since they're the ones nobody is paying for the things they should know, right? So obviously we should believe everything they tell us about this and do everything they want, Nay fellows, NEED to do in order to save all the creators of the movies, games, music and books we all live on!

Oh wait, somebody did a report on the Entertainment industry and it looks like they're making dosh hand over fist more than they ever have before.

http://www.techdirt.com/skyisrising/

Well ladies and gents, I'm very confused. Could someone be lying to us? Surely not?

Posted 1 year ago #
DSB
Member

Was there ever any doubt?

It makes me sad when I see people defending publishers, especially on the basis that they're somehow challenged on costs or revenue. People should really be less gullible, and try to look a bit further.

They're not in trouble, they're just grabbing everything they can and making excuses for every "bright idea" they get.

The blocks for that graphic are somewhat cherrypicked, but I still really like the music one. Artists are making more, publishers are on the way out.

Posted 1 year ago #
LOLshock94
Member

what aload of shit

Posted 1 year ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

@DSB, on my part. Hell no. But there are clearly a lot of people who do believe that the evil pirates are costing people jobs and stripping money out the industry to such a massive degree that everyone is clinging to the breadline and it barely has any grounding in fact. It merely sounds plausible so it's taken at face value.

And face value is dangerous, because a lot of dodgy figures are used to justify "the losses". The methodology used to reach these figures is often highly suspect if not just plain bollocks. I read recently a little breakdown of one of the ways "losses" to piracy are inflated, which is to take the cost of a "pirated" work then split that cost into the various avenues the revenue goes down (company profit, retailer, shipping etc) then ADD them together to arrive at the "loss to the economy". I believe the example given was a $10 dvd and the "loss" arrived at was $19, which is mental mathematics.

It's not the only example either. Sometimes independent analysts go over what ever BS the MPAA or similar release, can't understand it and ask where certain figures came from and get the reply "we don't know" I mean come the fuck on.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

Truth remains that if publishers and developers weren't having a harder time there would be far more games which completely satisfy (or mostly at least) niche markets with none of this 'accessibly' bullshit (and we've all complained about that). And there wouldn't developers closing left, right and centre.
If only we could make games at the standards they are at today but be able to afford to really narrow down the target audience, games would be simply fucking awesome and piracy isn't exactly helping that fact.
How can you claim that what I just said isn't true, history dictates it. Or is it just coincident that as games become more expensive they also become more accessible.

Posted 1 year ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

Noodlemanny, you want my take on Studio closures?

Fine, here goes. It stems from the habit of Publishers buying up Studios to fill a role and dictating what games those Studios make. It's not a happy relationship for the developers. Very few (if any) Studio closures have been from either Independent Studios who design their own projects then seek Publisher PARTNERSHIPS for funding or those who are Publisher owned but largely given freedom to make the games they want to make.

The closures have been from the leashed up Studios who are ordered to make "x" game that fits "y" niche or who had early success with an IP and have now been condemned by the Publisher to infinite sequelisation. Creators do not work at their peak if they're dictated to work on projects they have no affinity for, therefore they release sub-par games which under perform in the market and the publisher, despite being the root cause of the shitness, decide to shut down the studio rather than give them free-reign to develop something that they want to develop.

Riddle me this, how many Studios have closed whose last (or even last few) games were really good? If you can find me any I'd be genuinely shocked.

What DSB has been saying about Publishers is damned true, there needs to be a distance, because aside from the point he makes about their decreasing relevance (in any modern media) they're actually hurting the industry with poor direction.

The reason for the "accessibility bullshit" as you so succinctly put it is Publishers! "Hey look, Call of Duty is selling up a storm, we want a slice of this pie, You, Studio we bought to make Shooter games, make us a CoD competitor and get it out the door in 18 months, now mush!" and when the game comes out shit and probably unfinished (at the Publishers insistence, because 18 months are up boy) they try and paper the cracks by pumping a ton of money into marketing which ultimately just bumps up the figure on their losses for the title and accelerates the decision to close that shitty Studio who couldn't make a CoD clone, despite the fact that they never really wanted to build a CoD game in the 1st place.

But yeah, Pirates or whatever.

Posted 1 year ago #
DSB
Member

I think you're grossly misenterpreting what's actually happened Noodlemanny.

Publishers got hit by the credit crunch just like everybody else. EA has always been the expand-at-all-costs company, so that left them open to huge losses, which lead to thousands of people getting fired. Activision ditto.

That's not fighting for survival, that's adapting to circumstances using basic mechanisms. And a result of reckless expansion.

Even then, how individual studios perform has little to do with how a publisher does in general. They aren't going to win on every release, and the more publishers give into pressure from the market, the more likely they are to punish their studios for failing performance, even if they're capable of so much more.

I don't think any gamers wanted to see studios like Bizarre or Pandemic go, but they're always going to have their heads on the chopping block, even when it's suits fucking it up for them.

And there are other factors as well. At the moment it's vastly more profitable to put studios in some parts of the world, rather than others. Europe is especially inept at securing support for their high tech industries, and of course, if a studio has mediocre performance, then it would be way cheaper for the publisher to shut it down, and build a new one in Canada.

Of course, all of this makes both studios and executives want to take even less risk, because the consequences of failure, even slight failure, have become extreme. This is why you're missing the niche market. People would rather make a game that's slightly above average and save their asses, than bet on innovation and risk losing their studio.

To my mind that's just even more reason not to put up with publishers and their bullshit. They're making money as easily as they ever did, the only thing that's changed is how far they're willing to go to make even more.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

Why do you think all these devs are going to these big publishers in the first place? To sign their own death warrants? No, they couple to publishers because they don't have the money and can't get the money to create independent triple A games on their own. In order to do the projects they want to do they HAVE join with a publisher.
There are the odd exceptions to this like Value (which is more of a publisher now), Epic games and what else.. Is there another? Lets look at why these devs can afford to make triple A games. Value can though Steam The revenue though steam must be massive and the profit I'm sure will more than suffice. And Epic though royalties and copyright from the unreal engine. How many games use it meaning epic gets a chunk of dosh out of it.
So devs are only going to publishers because money is getting tight. Without publishers I'm pretty sure the gaming industry would be massively, massively, massively outweighed by arcade and indie titles rather than triple A. In my eyes publishers are simply a necessary evil.
Anyway despite this there is still a growing trend towards much more casual, arcade and indie games anyway.

If money was as stable as you think it is then why all these changes? We're losing what we enjoy the most because what we enjoy is too expensive to make with too little payback and frankly from where I'm standing, I can't see how anyone could interpret that as anything other than fact. And again, piracy isn't helping.

I'm also not sure that I was over exaggerating about closings... that much. I'll just redirect you here:
http://www.vg247.com/2012/02/01/thq-confirms-240-job-cuts-ceo-salary-halved/
and say; "Deja vu?"

Posted 1 year ago #
DSB
Member

I think there are plenty of reasons why developers sell to publishers, and this is by no means a new or more or less common thing to do.

One reason could obviously be in way of ensuring the future, although you really don't get any security unless you deliver a consistently great performance - in which case you shouldn't really have problems getting a decent deal in the first place, without having to give up your independence.

More often I think it's a case of owners and studio heads wanting to cash out. It's the same as any other business. You either go public, or you sell outright whenever it's time to bank on your business. It's money in the bank, and whether you do terribly, and whether the new owner runs it into the ground, the owners still keep that money.

This to me explains a lot about the history of studios like Bullfrog, Bioware, and Popcap. Either there was a huge cash prize involved, or executive titles for the studio heads.

If you can make 750 million by signing on a dotted line, it puts you pretty far ahead in terms of maybe only making that 20-30 years down the road.

Using THQ is an example is pretty laughable. They're the worst run publisher in the industry, and they have been for several years now. No one else is having trouble making money.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

I'm not saying that Publishers have the right to do whatever they please to whatever developer they please. More that their a business like everything else is and business is cut throat. Developers are businesses too but they have less power so can be pushed around more.
Bottom line is developers have no choice but to join a publisher because they can't make it on their own.

Posted 1 year ago #
freedoms_stain
Moderator

Noodlemanny, you're not quite there.

Think of there as being 2 types of Studio, Publisher owned and Self owned.

Both need Publisher money to bring their games to market, the difference is that Publisher owned Studios are often/largely dictated as to what games they are creating whereas Self owned Studios come up with an idea for a game on their own, then attempt to find interested Publishers to finance it.

See the difference?

Epic have recently been dealing with Microsoft to Publish the Gears of War Games, Valve in fact do self-publish and use EA as a distributor.

What are we losing? Once again, point me to a Studio that has closed in the last few years whose most recent games were critical and commercial successes. Once again I'll be shocked if you can do so, because off the top of my head I can't think of a single one.

Indeed can you list me any Self owned Studios who have closed?

Publishers dissolve studios that make crap because they were directed to make crap. Any Publisher that is struggling to make profit is down to their own "Leadership"habits of buying studios for a purpose then shitting money at projects that were never going to work in the 1st place.

Any lack of cash is the Publishers own fault and not that of a declining marketplace, because as all the figures tell, the marketplace is bigger than it has ever been in the past ever.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

And so you think that the publisher has no input or effect on the Self owned dev game being developed? Their not going to throw millions of revenue at anything without insurance that it will actually bring profit. I understand what third and first party developers are and I'm saying that money doesn't stretch far enough to enable complete freedom to make the games we really want.
Also I'd say that there are devs who were making really good games but then as times got tougher they had to contract with a publisher. Bizzare made some cracking games and was still making at least good ones till the end, the fact that the quality of the games they were making was actually fairly consistent didn't help. Then there's Rare which joined with Microsoft but the question is if they hadn't would they still be around? Why is it that despite the fact that it is a highly successful dev its so reluctant to become completely self-reliant? This could be simply due to the fact that it still has a contract with Microsoft so can't be independent yet. But I'd wager that as soon as it can, it will get another contract with some other publisher rather than go independent , Sony looks to be on the list next. Purely speculation though.

Posted 1 year ago #
DSB
Member

I think the argumentation is going off the road here.

Blizzard didn't sell to any major publisher at the time (which was almost 20 years ago) and THQ have no one but themselves to blame for where they're at.

I don't like piracy, I think it's anti-social behaviour, with dubious justifications. Personally I'd love to see an open source world, and that would be a beautiful thing, but I also feel like you have to live within the world you have, not the one you want. In the one we have, intellectual property is basis for business, and of course nobody is doing anybody any favors by undermining that.

The argument here though, is whether it's ruining peoples ability to do business. I simply don't see any evidence of that. It's worth considering the fact that the impending doom of the publishing industry has been foretold ever since the early 90's, if not sooner.

I don't know anyone who owned more legitimate copies of games, than they did pirated floppydiscs back in the 90's. At least today I know people who are pretty serious about only buying legitimate copies on places like Steam.

And that's reflected in how these businesses are doing.

It doesn't have a lot to do with what developers are doing, which is pretty much the same they've been doing ever since the post-Atari era, where developers became free to do what they wanted.

If you want to see something interesting, check out EA's annual earnings report for 2010. Aside from the usual revenue and percentages, they also list the number of titles for each platform.

Guess which one is the most profitable for EA - The PC. If piracy is really a threat to their survival, then it's pretty weird that the PC would be making more than either of the DRM machines per release.

And given that EA have lost 4% of their PC revenue over the last 3 years, and Activision has doubled theirs (not counting MMOs) I really don't see a basis to say that releasing games on the PC is anything but great business for publishers.

Posted 1 year ago #
Noodlemanny
Member

@DSB
What I'm trying to say is that times are getting harder and that its moving the game industry away from what made me love it in the first place. No its not impossible for people to keep making games rather its starting to become impossible to make games that can satisfy those niche genres. What I'm saying is that if times weren't getting tough then nothing would be changing, but they are. Basically these changes are changes that I think is a threat to not the game industry as a whole but rather the games that I really want. Those I believe are starting to be in real danger of becoming completely extinct.

(Bazzard was a typing error, I make alot of edits after I post cos I find it hard to check read while still writing the post (so the post you read before has probably changed. alot. since you last read it)

Posted 1 year ago #
DSB
Member

But if publishers are only making more and more, how can times be bad?

They all got hit by the financial crisis, but pretty much all publishers have responded effectively, and none of them can be said to be suffering more or less than every other public company.

Some people attribute the financial crisis with starting sequelitis. I think that's pretty narrowminded, since sequels have always made up a huge part of the market - But maybe that's true. If it is, they still couldn't sell them unless people actually wanted them.

Genres were being marginalized long before the financial crisis and the latest wave of piracy hystria. Proper tactical shooters have been dead since 1999. I believe it's down to publishers getting greedy. There's no reason to push boundaries or challenge people, when people are happily buying middle of the road titles.

Games like Psychonauts and Startopia belong to some of the best I've ever played, and yet virtually no one bought them. If brand new, original IPs truly have such high standing, then why weren't we buying them when they were still being made?

Publishers could care less about gaming as a medium, and gamers don't know what they have till it's gone. I think that's the headline for gaming in the 21st century.

Posted 1 year ago #

RSS feed for this topic

Reply

You must log in to post.