Have any PR questions???

#41 I was wondering Scott, about your position with regards the garagegames model?

I know George is pretty negative. I guess he see's it at an attempt to cash in on mod developers?

I just wondered what your take is on it.

I dont think anyone see's it as a way of generating a lot of revenue (well, no-one realistic anyway), its really just a way of getting some interest from sierra.

Phil.

#42 Phil: "I was wondering Scott, about your position with regards the garagegames model?"

I haven't studied it well enough to fully undertand it, however, you've probably read my thoughts that I do not believe that ESD is the future of the game businesses. For one, this will ***NEVER*** be the case with console games. Never, never, never, never.

And publishers will always stick with the retail model because that's what gives them half their power, and most games must be made with a financial publisher's help, therefore the publisher has the control.

Jim Perkins, CEO of Arush (www.webcorpgames.com), at the GDC, had a speech saying that retail would be dead in 2-3 years. That's so flat insanely wrong. (BTW, we're even using Arush for the release of a Duke Nukem game--a remake of the original Duke Nukem.)

Anyway, ESD will be a "thing," but it will not be the Big Thing, nor replace retail. I laugh hard at such naive thinking.

Basically, ESD will *supplement* retail sales, but will always represent a small percentage of overall total game industry sales. Anyone sticking with ESD only (and not going retail) will miss out on substantial revenues.

The nearly free engine that GG offers seems like a good thing, but I doubt it will result in any substantial games, but the chance is certainly not zero--you never know.

Did I miss any area you wanted me to comment on?

Scott, 3D Realms

#43 No, you covered what I was thinking about.

I really see the garagegames model as more of a mod developer sort of thing rather than out and out traditional development.

I guess the best thing is that it gives people who would be making no money off thier mods the chance to make SOME revenue,
but more importantly, to gain recognition from companies like sierra (traditional publishers who seem to have taken the commercial
viability of some mod developers to heart).

Its also quite a good prototyping tool for companies without significant technology available internally.

Phil.

#44

Quote:
The nearly free engine that GG offers seems like a good thing, but I doubt it will result in any substantial games, but the chance is certainly not zero--you never know.

What criteria do you use to evaluate whethor a game is a a 'substantial' game? I assume you mean sales, as that has been your main emphasis throughout this entire thread. Obviously, a niche game sold on a website is not going to threaten blockbuster titles with multi-million dollar advertising budgets.

However, a niche game can deliver a compelling and original storyline, and rewarding gameplay without having to hit the top 10 charts.

What I find interesting is that Computer Gaming World ran an article a while back showing that many of the highest rated gaming, including several editor's choices, tended to sell very poorly.

Mass market games offer simple gameplay and flashy graphics. They appeal to the lowest common denominator so as to maximize their market. If that's your thing, then go for it. I'd prefer to deliver the game I want to do. Maybe my mom's the only one that will ever buy it, but hey, it's my life, and I would find that personally more rewarding than working on Barbie's Studio VI.

#45 Matthew: >>>What criteria do you use to evaluate whethor a game is a a 'substantial' game? I assume you mean sales, as that has been your main emphasis throughout this entire thread. Obviously, a niche game sold on a website is not going to threaten blockbuster titles with multi-million dollar advertising budgets. However, a niche game can deliver a compelling and original storyline, and rewarding gameplay without having to hit the top 10 charts.<<<

By 'substantial,' I mean a game that affects the industry in a notable way, either by sales or by innovation.

Games that affect the industry nowadays, most often are from professional studios with publisher backing, not from self-funded garage operations.

>>> What I find interesting is that Computer Gaming World ran an article a while back showing that many of the highest rated gaming, including several editor's choices, tended to sell very poorly. <<<

You see the same thing in the movie and book industry. Critics often turn a nose down on hit products and prefer to look smarter-than-the-rest-of-us-common-folk by picking lesser known titles that are in some way *different*, but not always better.

I used to always joke back that back in the 70's, 80's and early 90's, before Speilberg won an oscar (and usually his hit movies weren't even nominated for the Best Picture category), that I'd rather not win awards and make hits, than the reverse of that.

>>> Mass market games offer simple gameplay and flashy graphics. They appeal to the lowest common denominator so as to maximize their market. If that's your thing, then go for it. I'd prefer to deliver the game I want to do. <<<

At 3DR, we have it both ways. ;-)

Scott

#46 Scott:

Quote:For one, this will ***NEVER*** be the case with console games. Never, never, never, never.

Wow. That is a long time:) Scott, I would like to take you up on this one. I don't know the timeframe, but I truly believe someday people will play games in much the same way they watch television now. I will preface this with the fact that even though I have been making games for a long time, I have little experience in the console market, but I can look at trends and make my own prognostications. Here is my thinking though.

First, DSL and cable modems are midband, not broadband. We need LAN Internet speed going into the home. This was the path we were on until the tech meltdown occured. So, this is my biggest area of concern for this scenario right now. Just getting consumers up to midband will be big feat, and broadband in any significant numbers is probably ten years out. But, Scott said never, never, so even 10-15 years is relatively close compared to that.

Whatever, it still seems inevitable that some day a mass market of people connected to really fast pipes is a given. Once that happens, and everybody is playing console games on their PS5, Gamecube 4, and XBox 4's (another debate we can take up later), going to the local Walmart and buying stale games off the shelf seems kind of old fashioned.

A player could simply peruse hundreds of game channels, some of which are advertising supported (I'm not a huge fan of this, but some people are), some are subscription based, and some are pay per view. The play is immediate. The games have no bugs because they are constantly updated. If a player has a question, a company representative is immediately available via voice chat. So, the player wins.

Another reason that I think this scenario will happen is that Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo want it to happen. They would rather control the distribution channel and make even more money off every game sold.

Scott, I hope you take this post with the light heartedness that I wrote it. It's fun to have a public debate over these kinds of things.

Jeff Tunnell GG

#47 I have to agree with Scott about the console scene, you really can't break into it if you're an indy developer. Maybe that will change with the Xbox or that Indrema (sp?) system, but if you want to make a Nintendo title, you have to jump through a lot of hoops to get it done.

ps - Just picked up Tribes 2, Im hoping they've optimized the engine since playing the beta, as it was on the sluggish side back then.

#48 Well, here's my current take on things:

Electronic delivery is something that I think every major developer should look into. From all the reports Ive read,
its pretty clear that most large japanese developers (Square being a prime example), are looking at delivering content
via a wire of some sort.

Its my feeling though, that just as the .COM boom has happened and failed, if this happens, it will be a short lived boom
with some companies placed at the right time to make themselves rich via the promise of future sales rather than the
actual reality.

I only think its the long term players that look at the market in the right way, build an identity slowly that will win out.

The trouble is that as anything commercially successful, everything is down to the "markets". So if someone sniffs a chance of
making a profit that wasnt there before, they go at it like a rabid dog. Eventually the giants of industry get involved and things settle
down a lot more.

If you look at the music industry, Ive always thought there were a lot of similarities with the games industry.

If we take PC titles as an example, in the "early days" of PC games, a few "indie" developers got thier act together and became
popular (for example 3DR, Id, EPIC etc.), the "big players" were always there as well, but there was room for a few "beatles" style
phenomenon. Now we take a look at the modern music industry. Its all boy bands, manufactured, soulless music, with a very shrink wrapped
style. The industry has boiled down to a few major players, and the person with the biggest clout is perhaps not the AnR guys anymore, but
the "hit factory" type people. You know the type, they produce a million compilation albums every year. I guess this is the here and now of the
games industry. I feel it even in my own position, having to work on "established brands" rather than something new.

Look at the whole publisher position now, and its very similar (in my eyes at least). Sony are in this market
just as they are in the music market. I am really really surprised that Microsoft arent in the music industry too now :)

What does this mean for independant developers? well, I guess if your being realistic, it means that you
shouldnt expect much. If you manage to make a living as a professional developer, doing your own thing,
then you are ahead of the crowd. Occasionally someone will throw a bone to a "new" developer thats probably
been around for the last 5-10 years.

Speaking personally, I am into games because I like playing them. I like the creativity of game creation,
and I'd rather write games that no-one see's but that I enjoy than become part of some corporate machine.

Call me naive if you like, but I'm pretty sure almost any modern game programmer could earn a higher
salary than they do (certainly the level of knowledge amongst games programmers is incredibly high compared to most
of the "software engineering" industry), Its only the feel for the job that keeps me going.

Sorry, dont know where I was going with that last bit. I guess I just get worked up when I think about how stale
games might become.

Phil.

#49 Just a quick question to you marketing and PR types :)

How often is it that a company allows another company to use its license for a product?

What I am thinking here is this type of scenario:

Company A produces a game, its recieved well, but doesnt really sell in massive numbers, its a sort of "almost hit".

Company A gets into difficulties, however the publisher Company A used gets them to do a sequel.

Now enter a new element. Company B is an unknown quantity, but has a very nice demo of a game
based on the idea from Company A, but in a new genre.

Company B's plan would be to approach the Publisher of Company A, and ask if it would fund completion
of the title, thus strengthening the license (helping out the publisher AND company A?), giving the publisher another
product, and adding to the choice for fans of the license.

Is this a realistic scenario? Have I missed some obvious drawback? I guess if Company A still owned the rights
to sequels etc, then it would be in a position to stop any deal. But how often do companies keep the rights to
all sequels? or even just to the overall license?

Its obviously a very highly hypothetical case, but I'd be interested in what the norm for this type of thing is.

Phil.

#50 Phil: >>>How often is it that a company allows another company to use its license for a product?<<<

Quite often, if I understand you right. We do it all the time--for example, we're doing it with four original products currently, in which four unique, independent developers are creating products based on intellectual property (IP) rights that we own. Three are based on Duke Nukem, and one is based on an original concept we created and it's being developed by a very well known developer (with $3 million funding from a publisher).

We've done this sort of licensing activity since 1996.

>>> Is this a realistic scenario? <<<

This is totally realistic. In marketing talk, it's called broadening the market of the product. It's one of the key steps in creating a true franchise.

Again, we do this all the time.

>>> But how often do companies keep the rights to all sequels? or even just to the overall license? <<<

The answer should be nearly 100 percent of the time, but publishers are very good at getting ownership of these rights, or tying them up for a long period.

The bottom line on IP rights: They are by far the most valuable rights a business can own. When a business is sold, 80% or more of it's value is a reflection of the IP rights. Too many developers let these rights get owned by the publisher all too easily.

Scott, 3DR

#51 Jeff, when I say never, never, never, never, I really mean never, never, never, never anytime soon. ;-)

No one can predict unpredictable technological breakthroughs, like the transistor, that suddenly make the impossible possible.

A lot of people thought that Amazon would kill retail book stores -- retail book stores are now bigger than ever, because they've become more than book stores, they've become coffee shops, meeting places, have more book signings -- generally, they've become a form of entertainment. Plus, there are enough people who just like to get out of the house and browse shop.

Retail has a way of adapting to web-based competition -- nothing changes in a vacuum, there's always a domino effect of related changes that re-balances the entire system. So, if ESD starts to seriously negatively effect retail, we'll see changes in retail that re-balance the entire system.

It's very easy to say, "Technology will improve to a point that retail will no longer be necessary," but that's a seriously myopic and biased view in my opinion.

ESD will never replace retail. I do think ESD will find a niche, but it will never be the big player.

Scott, 3DR

#52 >>> Is this a realistic scenario? <<<
>This is totally realistic. In marketing talk, it's called broadening the market of the product. It's one of the key
>steps in creating a true franchise.

>Again, we do this all the time.

I forgot the term franchise :)) yes, this is exactly what I was thinking, targeting a publisher with a franchise
that is still being developed.

>>> But how often do companies keep the rights to all sequels? or even just to the overall license? <<<

>The answer should be nearly 100 percent of the time, but publishers are very good at getting ownership of
>these rights, or tying them up for a long period.

Well, the publisher having the IP rights is one of the things I am hoping for. :)) (And of course them being amenable to
the whole concept).

>The bottom line on IP rights: They are by far the most valuable rights a business can own. When a business is
>sold, 80% or more of it's value is a reflection of the IP rights. Too many developers let these rights get owned
>by the publisher all too easily.

Yeah, I can see how this happens too. Actually being able to fund a full development all the way through
is almost impossible for a startup, so inevitably its based on publisher funding. In this weakened state
its pretty obvious that negotiating away IP rights would be easier for the publisher.

Here are some more questions for you then :) (sorry Scott, its just kind of interesting to get perspective from
someone who knows the business end of the market).

If you were the owner or publisher of some IP rights, what scale of demonstration would you want from
a developer to show that they could do justice to the property? Would a single level with substantial content be
enough? (I guess this is kind of a general question about getting publishers interested, which Ive seen covered
a million times before, just never thought about it from a franchise point of view before).

Do you think its a safer bet for a startup developer to take on a franchise rather than try to develop thier own (in terms
of trying to secure publisher interest?) (well, thats pretty clear, but is it financially more viable for the developer to do this?)

I guess the biggest issue of a startup apart from the usual funding issues is that of having a good team
of workers. I think thats possibly the biggest single hurdle to me ever wanting to form my own studio. I just dont think
there are really that many good people in the industry (thats not to say there arent talented newcomers, its
just that some of the old "veterans" like myself arent really into it any more).

As usual, idea's are ten a penny, implementations are a whole new ballgame :) maybe I should reconsider
becoming a buddist monk and forget all this development nonsense :)))

Phil.

#53 Phil: >>>If you were the owner or publisher of some IP rights, what scale of demonstration would you want from
a developer to show that they could do justice to the property? <<<

That depends a lot of the value of the property. Obviously, the more valuable a property, like Star Wars, the more proof a licensee (the IP owners) will want from the developer that the developer can do a great job.

>>> Would a single level with substantial content be
enough?

The owner of a valuable license will undoubtedly only allow a developer with a proven track record to create a game based on the owner's IP. On the other hand, a not-so-valuable IP, like any number of sci-fi or fantasy books that haven't been expanded beyond their print version, could probably be had rather cheaply and easily. But then, they don't bring much value to selling the game, either.

>>> Do you think its a safer bet for a startup developer to take on a franchise rather than try to develop thier own (in terms of trying to secure publisher interest?) <<<

I think a great way for a new development studio to get a start is to work with a publisher or developer to make an add-on product for an established IP/license. Owners of successful licenses are always looking for ways to broaden their market in this way, and if a new developer can propose a way to do that, then there's a great chance of betting such a project green-lighted.

An example of this with 3DR is when Wildfire Studios came to us with the idea of a pinball game (I came up with the eventual name we used, Balls of Steel), and we only okayed it when they agreed to make one of the tables a Duke Nukem 3D table, which we felt was a good way to broaden the market for Duke Nukem to people who may not have played the FPS game.

>>> I guess the biggest issue of a startup apart from the usual funding issues is that of having a good team
of workers. <<<

Absolutely. The three things any long-term successful developer must have: Leadership, talent and funding. Miss even in one of these areas and your future will be short.

>>> I think thats possibly the biggest single hurdle to me ever wanting to form my own studio. I just dont think
there are really that many good people in the industry <<<

Even for us it's tough to always find what we consider perfect developers, those that are true game players, have a 3+ years professional background, and are among the top 10% of their expertise. But it's like a sports team--usually the team with the best overall talent wins.

Scott, 3DR

#54 Hey Phil,

I just read that you accepted a job at Relic to work on Sigma. Congrats!

#55 Congrats to Phil!

I had missed this thread, fab stuff.

Folks could do to read thru this now and again, if nothing else, than to set their sights on Scott and 3DR ;)

Final, on topic note: The niche for EDS and Consoles is probably gonna start in the hotels, where they "pipe" the console games into the rooms via webtv-like interfaces.

Can't be that far out of the minds of Sony to allow that kind of content on a C/S software (rather than IC/CD) delivery platform. Kinda a big, sanctioned emulator ;)

That's my nickel for the day, anyone want to talk to Sony and see if they are doing it?

#56 Thanks guys. Just wanted to let you know its not Sigma I'm on :)) (sigma is pretty damn cool as well).

Anyway, I'll update everyone with my new email and stuff once I get settled in vancouver (what a great place!).

Great trip to the US overall though, I took in most of the west coast on my travels, it was certainly an eye opener!

Phil.

#57 Congrats Phil. I think you're at a good studio, from what I've heard.

>>> Thanks guys. Just wanted to let you know its not Sigma I'm on :)) (sigma is pretty damn cool as well). <<<

I have some doubts about this game, unless I'm wrong about the following: Can you only mix two creatures together, which bascially amounts to a head and a body? Or can you mix more than two creatures together?

Scott

#58 I am developing a RPG, what is the best way to get good PR from the start(this is my first game expect small games that is not very good).

#59 Hey Phill I'm in Vancouver as well :), I'm in the city called Richmond.Congratulation in getting into that studio[abit late]. By the way what's the name of the company you work for?