Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Movies Media PlayStation (Games) Entertainment Games

Tara Reid And The Future Of Game Development 85

Posted by simoniker from the relevance-plus-plus dept.
Thanks to GameSpy for its article covering Naughty Dog's president Jason Rubin discussing why gaming needs to do more for its talent. Rubin explained the strange title of his lecture by referencing to Sony's E3 2003 party: "After several calls, lots of hassle, waiting in a long line, and a trip through the metal detector, Rubin was able to get in. Meanwhile, Hollywood darling Tara Reid simply strolled into the party. This got Rubin thinking about how much money and attention publishers garnish celebrities with. By contrast, the business does a really poor job of promoting its own talent." He went on to note: "Very rarely do you see a developer's name on the box, and sometimes you don't even see the developer's logo", and urged a change of attitude: "Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Tara Reid And The Future Of Game Development More

Tara Reid And The Future Of Game Development

Comments Filter:
  • But don't worry... Tara was the one photographed by US Weekly that night vomiting all over herself, tripping in a drunken state and being carried out by her friends (as she is every night). So I don't think it's that great to be in her shoes.

    Plus, can she honestly think anyone would want to see her onscreen once she's 30? It's common knowledge that there are few jobs for older actresses, and the only ones who get them are the ones with a LOT of talent (Kidman, Zelwegger, Zeta-Jones, Keaton, Lane).

    Look forward to seeing Ms. Reid in "The Surreal Life 6."
    • Being Tara Reid may not be all tea and cakes, but is being Jason Rubin any better? Honestly, I wish that I could get stumbling around drunk every night and still make as much as money as she does. I don't know Mr. Rubin, but if he looks like any of the geeks at my school I'd much rather look at Tara Reid in ten years than Jason Rubin now.

      Just because these stars are eventually going to watch their careers fade doesn't mean that we should pity them.

      • When I interviewed him (in 2001) Jason Rubin looked extremely fit and very smart (in a preppy way) in his chinos and tucked-in white shirt. He also proved to be a very good public speaker and quite personable.

        I'd much rather look like Jason Rubin in ten years than like Tara Reid now.

  • I completely agree.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Recoil_42 ( 665710 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:20PM (#8487366) Homepage Journal
    I even know a few people who believe that the publisher is the one who makes the games. One of them continued to argue with me in the case of True Crime: Streets of LA, telling me that Activision makes all his favorite games, and that there was no way that i was telling him they didn't make them at all. (except for marketing, packaging, etc.) It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory, because that puts them in a position of advantage on the developers, giving the publisher all the money for doing less work. This is really evident when looking at EA --- its "EA games' Battlefield 1942", not "DICE's Battlefield 1942" what the leads to, is the developers completely getting swindled, as the record companies do now, but in a different way -- you won't get sales unless you go with one of the big labels (in the case of games, publishers), and if you DO go with them, they'll swindle you for all you're worth. I'd really like to hear some real developer's opinions on this though, as IANAGD. (I am not a game developer) C'mon guys, i know you're out there.
    • (argh, stupid /. and linebreaks) I completely agree.. I even know a few people who believe that the publisher is the one who makes the games. One of them continued to argue with me in the case of True Crime: Streets of LA, telling me that Activision makes all his favorite games, and that there was no way that i was telling him they didn't make them at all. (except for marketing, packaging, etc.) It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory, because that puts them in a position of advantage on t

    • Re:I completely agree.. (Score:5, Informative)

      by dsyu ( 203328 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:30PM (#8487780) Homepage Journal
      Yep. I worked on a game which was being published by EA, but done at a third party development studio. EA specifically told us that our company logo would not be on the box, or shown at the title-screen of the game (this was part of the contract). The reasoning was that EA wants the consumer to think that the game comes solely from EA -- it's a branding thing. At least we did get credit (by name) in the end-game credits.

      Personally, I think it's stupid, since it's often just a logo. But for a publisher like EA, its usually a take-it-or-leave-it kind of deal, and smaller dev houses sometimes can't bargin these sort of details.

      Generally speaking, only hard-core gamers are aware of the large number of smaller dev houses doing games. Developers aren't always in it for the glory though.

      • Re:I completely agree.. (Score:2, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward
        EA specifically told us that our company logo would not be on the box, or shown at the title-screen of the game (this was part of the contract).

        Heck, sometimes EA doesn't even bother with adding it to the contract and instead, weeks before being pressed, they hack out the developers logo and there's nothing the developer can do about it; because EA have more money than any developer, they CAN do whatever they want.

    • Re:I completely agree.. (Score:4, Interesting)

      by neverkevin ( 601884 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @07:00PM (#8487954) Homepage
      It's really sad that the publisher gets all the glory

      But the publishers are usually risking more money and reputation then the developers. Publishers have spent many years and millions of dollars to build up their reputation and their supply channels. It is usually not possible for a small to medium size game development company to support a staff of sales people who can get the games on the store shelfs, marking people who will make a successful ad campaign along with paying for developers to write the game. As with any entertainment business, the gatekeepers, the ones who can get products to the people and the ones you can get people to want the product are the ones who are going to profit the most.

    • Re:I completely agree.. (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      It's kind of funny... the smaller nightclub and DJ scene is like this a lot too. Promoters take all the credit and make all the money. They rake in $15-$40 every 30 seconds as hundreds to thousands of kids file into their party. They stand outside greeting people for a bit... walk around, schmooze in the VIP area... But really... everyone is there for the music (and some for drugs but that's another story).

      People come to see the musical groups and/or DJs... but unless you're a big name headliner dj/produc
      • Really? It sounds like the small developers are risking their entire company on their games. Let's see, they develop the game, they test the game, and if it fails to sell, the publishers tell them to fuck off. I think the small guys are risking a lot more.
    • Actually, Activision is one of the better publishers in this respect. Most Activision titles that I know of display the developer's logo prominently on the box and show an opening logo move for the developer after the Activision logo. Also, your friend is kind of right in this instance, since True Crime was developed by Luxoflux, a studio owned by Activision.

      The company could easily have rebranded all the studios it owns, like EA does, but they don't. It's specifically part of their strategy to let develop

  • Developers not regarded as marketable (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raiderx ( 612720 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:22PM (#8487381)
    This is really a problem with American and European publishers (Peter Molyneux promoting himself and Lionhead Studios notwithstanding). In Japan, the developers are well known and given credit for their work. Voice actors, who often do no other voice acting other than video game related gigs, are treated like rock stars by video game fans.

    The attitude seems to be that the folks that market the game seem to think THEY are the stars. Developers are regarded as slave labor to be exploited and dismissed.

    • Re:Developers not regarded as marketable (Score:4, Insightful)

      by cybermace5 ( 446439 ) <g.ryan@macetech.com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:56PM (#8487591) Homepage Journal
      Developers aren't marketable.

      And the attitude that the publishers are working for the developers...well, if any developers start taking that attitude, they need to be prepared to tighten the belt.

      Publishers are the ones that bring in money. There are thousands of fantastic games out there, you can find hundreds of websites where small groups are publishing their own games. They are virtually unheard of except for an in-crowd cult that can probably trace word-of-mouth back all the way to the developers showing their friends this new game they made. This model used to work OK back in the heyday of shareware, but now with the amount of advertising you pretty much need a publisher to make any money.

      And while many gamers would probably appreciate the quality of some of these independently-published games, remember that the multiplayer experience is now an important part of many games. If a gamer want to have a good time on online, there need to be lots of other players out there...and publishers do a good job of bringing those in too, beacuse of the sheer mass of promotion.

      Maybe the relationship of publishers and developers needs to change somewhat, but they are symbiotic. The publisher has most of the power though; because there are many developers out there who would like to get a major contract, and not as many publishers out there who want to take on the cast-offs of another publisher.
      • You're exactly right. I've been in software companies in which the engineers are "Gods" and they tend to do far, far less business (and therefore reduce the value of the stock options which the developers love to tout) than do the companies which have a more even keel.

        Good companies know that "marketing is everything" (no I'm not in marketing, I'm a developer too), because you could have the best product in the world, but if noone's shouting from the rooftops you're going to get buried by your competitio

      • Developers aren't marketable? What about iD, Blizzard or Valve? And of course, the grandparent poster indirectly recognized the selling power of the Square brand. The relationship between developer and publisher should be one of equivelent trade: they should be working for you just as much as you work for them.

        I keep hearing that multiplayer is big, but everyone translates that into internet play. In reality, one is a subset of the other--remember this dearly. If you're absolutely worried about bringing in
        • you do realize that
          a) Id pretty much published itself to godhood(shareware)

          b) Blizzard developed products are published by a lil company know as Blizzard

          c) Valve is pretty much converting itself into a publisher refer to retail version of Counter Strike, Day of Defeat, a pet project of theirs called Steam.

          thx for sharing 3 examples that absolutly go against the points your are trying to make.
          • Funny, I coulda sworn Vivendi Universal (owners of Sierra) was sending cease and desist letters to open source battle.net clones.

            These examples only go against my point if you grossly misunderstood it. My point was that developers are marketable. All three use a publisher. iD made a good deal of shareware, but even then they still had a relationship with a publisher (Apogee). Blizzard is not a publisher, not even in their early days making Gensis games like Lost Vikings (Interplay). And you surely know tha
      • You mean like the developers of Doom, Civilization, or Sims?
        The main reason you don't see a devs name is because companies don't want to promote someone and then have them quit and take thier name with them.
    • That's business as usual in corporate America. CEO's and board chairman are always tooting their own horns with hardly any recognition given to the underlings who actually perform the work.
    • I don't get what the problem is- some jackass developer just wants to hang out at parties or get more girls? Perhaps they could negotiate higher wages or better working conditions if gamers would buy games based on the names on the box, and perhaps higher pay and audience attention would reduce burnout- but what is the benefit again for all of us, or the publishers? If the answer isn't 'better games' then forget it.

      Improvements to the industry should be made, but don't look to media centered around havin

  • Get a grip, dude! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by fm6 ( 162816 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:25PM (#8487402) Homepage Journal
    Tara Reid is just the Pretty Face du jour. She's the one Hollywood is hyping today. Tomorrow it will be somebody else.

    The way Hollywood treats the talent sucks. But's that's as true for Tara Reid as for Jason Rubin. As Ms. Reid will find out the very moment people get bored with her.

    So Jason, if you want to be treated like a real human being, switch to an industry that grasps the concept.

  • History repeating? GoD all over again? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Drakino ( 10965 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:26PM (#8487407) Journal
    From his article "To make the changes, Rubin urged developers to reverse their thinking. He feels that talent needs to force the change. Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made. The talent should view the publisher as a tool for marketing, public relations, and sales. They are the ones making the games and they are the ones that should be wielding more power."

    I remember a publishing company called Gathering of Developers that started up using these ideals. Ideals like the developers deserve credit for their work, and other similar concepts. Great idea, but they were never taken seriously. And after seeing somewhat of how they ran and showed themselves, it's not a wonder. If someone attempts to do this again, they need to be a tad more mature, at least until they have a few top selling titles under their belt.

    I do wish developers got the recognition they deserve. But by no means do they deserve the world, and some of them I think expect this.
    • Let's not forget the fact that GoD threw some absolutely KILLER parties. The Promised Lot is still the greatest event that I have ever attended.

      They were all about being one with the gaming community and working with its developers. You can't get much better than that. I think the closest things we still have to that are companies like Ritual and Epic.

  • Not such a good idea (Score:5, Funny)

    by Pluvius ( 734915 ) <pluvius3NO@SPAMgmail.com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:26PM (#8487414) Journal
    The last time we turned developers into celebrities, the world was punished with Daikatana.

    Rob
    • I wonder how many people who insult Daikatana have actually played it. I didn't, but I doubt it can be any worse than Stormlord, Universal Soldier, Rainbow Island, Tomb Raider, Action 52, Double Dragon 3, or Crash Bandicoot...

      • The point was that Daikatana wasn't a "bad" game, it just didn't live up to the hype. And yes there was a lot of hype.

        Developers should stick with what they need to do, make good games. If they want to be celebraties, they should switch jobs.
    • And the time before that, we were punished with the likes of Pitfall!, River Raid, The Dreadnaught Factor, Microsurgeon, Ice Trek, White Water!, Truckin', and Demon Attack. Talk about shovelware! (Oh, wait a minute...)

  • I Buy Miyamoto Games (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MBCook ( 132727 ) <foobarsoft@foobarsoft.com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:28PM (#8487423) Homepage
    Makes sense to me. I bought Pikmin for the Game Cube (now one of my all time favorite games) becasue it was Miyamoto's baby. Don't get me wrong, if someone else had made the EXACT same game I would have looked at it. But I probably would have rented it and then beaten it, or maybe (very maybe) rented then bought. But I TRUST Miyamoto and BOUGHT the game without ever seeing more than a small description and screenshots. I have been burned FAR too many times by bad games to buy them anymore. I very rarely buy games, almost never without playing them. It's those few title that I KNOW I can trust that I'll buy. This is but one example.

    It works the other way too. I had a TERRIBLE expiriance with Sid Meier's Sim Golf, and I doubt I will ever buy one of his games again. If I do it will be a very VERY hard sell. This would be nice too because companies that continue to produce slop would be frowned upon and more people would avlid their crud. As it is now you have everything from fantastic games to the worst things you've ever played all under one name (like EA).

    It makes sense too. This really is a talent business like the movies and not just a "name" business like bras or something. And when was the last time ANYONE went to see a movie because it was being distributed by Warner or Sony? People could care less who distributes the movie, it's who directed/stars/wrote/produced it.

    • I agree about Miyamoto. I have NEVER bought a game made/overseen by him that I didn't love.

      Now Sid Meier - he is STILL the man. I didn't buy SimGolf, but every other game of his that I played ruled.
      • I've heard that before. Really the game was very fun, but there were just so many horrid bugs that it totally destroyed all the fun (and then some). The problem was probably more the developers (Firaxis), but Sid Meier is the name that sticks in my mind. It wasn't the game, it was the experiance with the game.

        But I hear he is going to remake Pirates!, which I may have to check out.

  • I only half agree with him.
    I DO think developers need to weild the majority of the power in the relationship. Its good for them, and its good for us consumers. Publishers shouldn't be trusted with the level of control they currently have, because the only ones it benefits is themselves. So yes, I definitly think its high time for developers to "take the power back" as it were.
    That said, I do NOT want to see another "Jim Bob's Galactic SpaceGunner" or "Killing Stuff in Dungeons: Joe Nobody Edition". I'll g
  • People like tara reid put a lot of work into developing and maintaining their celebrity. They hire people who work the system, they try to get stories about them in the entertainment "news" outlets, etc.

    The game companies put the celebrities on the box because they think it's in their interests to do so -- they think that it will drive sales. If they thought that about the designers and coders, they do it for them, too.

    If the geeks were smart, they'd try to emulate what hollywood people do to build thei

  • Rubin the Wrong Way (Score:3, Insightful)

    by illuminata ( 668963 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:43PM (#8487514) Journal
    Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made.

    If only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.

    Unless the world of game developers collectively decided to tell the publishers off on three, there's no way that the developer is going to become the one wearing the pants in the developer/publisher relationship. They have the power. Unless you can get your game onto a shelf and marketed without them, they always will be. But, you might just be able to become totally self-sufficient if you want to; as long as you don't believe that you'll be an industry player overnight.
    • f only they were in a position to do so. Most first time or independent developers have a very hard time getting the cash needed to finish a title. Who provides the cash? That's right, the publishers. Not only do they help get that game finished, they also provide marketing and get a game on the store shelves. Because of that, publishers get to be picky about what games they want due to the large amount of developers trying to get their attention.

      The reason that developers can't develop a decent industr

  • Respect is earned, not blithely given. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by GTarrant ( 726871 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:46PM (#8487532)
    While Mr. Rubin has a point to some degree, there are developers that have made sufficient names of themselves to be given press on the box/etc. of the game.

    Look at any game by id Software. You'll see the "id" logo prominently on the box. There's no mistaking who made that game when you look at the box. Ditto anything by Blizzard. Squaresoft/Square-Enix. Valve. Bioware, to some extent. Sure, in all these cases the publisher will be listed too (there will certainly be an "Activision" somewhere on the box of a game by id) but the developer is given high billing.

    Why? Because the publishers ARE trying to do the marketing, distributing, etc. and they know that there are fans that will look at a game by Blizzard, or id, or what have you, and buy it for that reason.

    This is no different than in Hollywood. There are some directors/writers/etc. that are big enough names that people will go see their movies specifically because it's one of theirs. And, certainly, there are other directors/etc. that may make quality movies, but don't yet have that recognition. It doesn't mean they suck. In the game industry, there aren't necessarily INDIVIDUALS that are like this, but rather development groups.

    If a developer continues to create innovative and popular games, they will get the recognition they deserve. Naughty Dog has done some good games, this is true, but when you think of big developers, they aren't one that comes to mind. If they succeed over time, it will come.

  • The old EA days (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Ochobee ( 672000 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @05:59PM (#8487607)
    I think Jason Rubin is longing for the days past when EA tried to market their deveopers like artists. Remember the bios and pictures that were included in every EA game in days past? I think Mr. Rubin and his Naughty Dog partner were featured in at least one of those (Keef the Thief?) as well.

    The question of course is, in a dev team of 20+ people who gets the rock star status? Jason Rubin or that guy 3 cubes down who is the genious behind graphics engine?
    • Jason Rubin, because he's well known for firing everyone who worked on Crash Bandicoot while him and his partner got rich. He's just being a prick.

  • Apples and Oranges? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:10PM (#8487681) Homepage
    It seems that he is talking about two different things. It seems that letting in a celebrity is a case where they are trying to make gaming look cool. "Look hollywood celebrity X thinks games are cool! That means that liking games makes you cool too!"

    The issue of not giving designers enough credit is something else. Even in Hollywood, for every Lucas there are a million other people who make competent work and go unknown. Let's face it, even one of the biggest directors is probably much less reccognizable than the biggest actor simply because the directors are not on camera. The same holds true of game designers. By the nature of their work they can't really get as much screen time as an actor, so they will be less well known.

    I don't think the case of EA taking the glory for a film is that unusual. How many films does someone like Mirimax or Lion's Gate just buy and put their name on it and get the credit for putting out quality films?

    Certainly designers do deserve more credit, but to compare designers level of celebrity to an actress is to compare apples and oranges.
    • The problem isn't how little recognition some get it's how much others get. We don't have a decent way of organizing information yet so we use things like bias and previous experience mar our media decisions.

      Work stands on it's own, I'm not saying it's created by gods will but a peice doesn't influence other pieces, one brilliant work a name does not make.
  • I think this is just a reality check showing how the huge media companies don't rule just the music industry. Note that most major game publishers are owned by the same massive corporations that own the music labels. Developers are next to nothing in today's market without shelf space and that space is owned by the publishers. You want top shelf, huge promotional posters in stores, TV commercials? Then you need to go to somebody with those capabilities. :x

  • It IS the business (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday March 06, 2004 @06:41PM (#8487833)
    Reading this article made my blood boil, it reminded me of an incident that I went through...my label (part of Vivendi-Universal) was throwing a west coast CD release party for my band at the Roxy in L.A. Guess who wasn't on the guest list? As I tried to reason with the gorillia at the door that the person on the billboard on Sunset was actually me, wave after wave of scensters and industry folks in search of open bar came through unscathed.

    Needless to say it was super-embarrasing to be seen as a hanger-on at an event that is supposedly in my honor.

    The business is there for itself, no one else. Those people want to hang with rockstars/game designers because it makes them feel better about themselves and their lack of creative talent. They're 9-5ers at heart, employees with an employee mentality, but still want a cool rock n' roll job. Who the creative folks they're hangin with/sucking off of are is the most unimportant part to these parasites (hence, no one bothering to put me on the guestlist), we're just a tool for them to get the valuable product they need.

    In the record businiess record producers and musicians used to run labels, now it's cut-throat businessmen. I remember when folks like Richard Gariott and Ken Williams *made* the games they sold....

  • programmers (Score:3, Interesting)

    by tekunokurato ( 531385 ) <jackphelps@gmail.com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @07:07PM (#8488014) Homepage
    Why not go back to the individual programmers? If you say the developers should be treated like authors are in the book world, the effect will be that developers' names will get bought up, programmers will get fired, and crap will be paraded around just to capitalize on the name.

    If you're going to go to the actual content, use nintendo or square's 'dream team' concepts -- they *always* used to tout the people who worked on the game, and each had their own individual feel.

  • and urged a change of attitude: "Developers should look at publishers as people they hire to sell the game they made."

    But the publisher usually owns the trademarks, and usually hires the developer, not the other way around... Usually because the developer isn't the one providing the overall funding for the project, the publisher, or more properly, the publishing group, does.

    But what happens is the more one group funds this kind of project, the more they line their pockets with the profits, if any, while

  • Publish games by yourself! (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Stormwatch ( 703920 ) <(rodrigogirao) (at) (hotmail.com)> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @08:23PM (#8488428) Homepage
    I guess this is not viable for consoles, but it's a nice way to work if you make computer games. So, if you can develop quality games on a low budget... what to do? Publish them as shareware! In time, with some luck and a lot of hard work, your company may become big enough to make more complex games and publish them boxed.

    Examples of this? iD, Ambrosia, Freeverse, Pangea, and Bungie.

  • Visual Appeal (Score:3, Insightful)

    by molafson ( 716807 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @08:38PM (#8488487)
    A lot of the appeal of celebrities is SEX appeal. This includes film, TV, and music celebrities. Of course, athletes are somewhat different, in that the famous ones are predominantly men being watched by a male audience. However, the athlete's appeal, while not sexual is physical in any case (strength, agility, etc).

    In any case, both of these kinds of appeal manifest themselves visually.

    On the contrary, there are lots of skilled people in the entertainment industry who do the bulk of the work who are not lavished with attention -- screenwriters, for example, or cinematographers, sound engineers, and producers.

    These are people who benefit neither from name recognition nor the constant attention of the camera. (A few directors, like some game developers, do at least attain some celebrity occasionally owing to name recognition, i.e. "branding.")

  • Developers are a dime a dozen (Score:4, Insightful)

    by miyako ( 632510 ) <miyako AT gmail DOT com> on Saturday March 06, 2004 @09:46PM (#8488757) Homepage Journal
    In my experience, good developers DO get recognized, maybe not by the publisher, but gamers, magazines and websites will note the developer.
    The thing is, good developers are rare, and mediocre developers are a dime a dozen.
    In an industry that is dominated more and more by rehashed formulas, dead mules beating beaten for 4 or 5 more sequals, and games whose whole concept is "hey, what if we made a game with all these chicks in like bikinis and they could jump around and shit. Oh we could have them play Volleyball! dude wouldn't that be awsome" the job of the developer is being replaced more and more by code monkies and marketing.
    The point being, developers of many games that come out are nothing special, so why should they be treated like that, and from a publishers viewpoint, why excert the time and money to create a rockstar persona for a really awsome developer when they could just shit-can him and higher a few people to make Grand Theft Auto Elevendy Two or Dead or Alive: Naked Chicks on Trampolines.
    Good developers do it because they love making games, poor developers don't deserve recognition anyway.

  • What Jason Rubin is really saying is... (Score:3, Funny)

    by UltimaL337Star ( 641853 ) on Saturday March 06, 2004 @11:39PM (#8489221)
    Game developers are terrible dressers
  • Remember when the only company you ever saw a game box or even in the credits was just the publisher?

    It will change, just give it time. I certainly know I never bought a game because it was published by Interplay, but I've damned near picked up every title I've ever seen made by Black Isle.
  • Sid Meyer = a Good Sim.
    "Two Guys from Andromeda" = a Good Comedy in Space.
    John Carmack = a Great First Person Shooter.
    Richard Garriot = a Great RPG.

    We used to do it to our games, then somewhere around the mid '90s computer companies stopped caring about the development cycle, and started caring more about the quantity of titles published... From that point, it de-personalized the industry, and you no longer could count on a particular company to consistently put out good products. Then companies were eate

    • Re:Examples... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Tackhead ( 54550 )
      > Sid Meyer = a Good Sim.
      > "Two Guys from Andromeda" = a Good Comedy in Space.
      > John Carmack = a Great First Person Shooter.
      > Richard Garriot = a Great RPG.

      Sony Online Entertainment = Crap. :)

      Let's go back in time 20 years.

      Front cover:

      "Axis Assassin: John Field."

      Inside cover:

      "Inside John Field.

      Six years ago, Jon Field thought an integrated circuit was a social issue. Then, in seventh grade, his school hooked up a computer. John checked it out. He punched in a few simple games.

  • Developer labels.... (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    A developer label or splash screen is about as meaningful as the production studio for a movie. Does anyone really associate American Zoetrope with quality despite the fact it's Francis Ford Coppolas's company? Well, that depends on if you think "Jeepers Creepers" has any relation to "The Godfather" or even "Lost in Translation" in quality.

    Fact of the matter is, developer (company) don't mean much.

    Now if you've got a hot shot game designer then sure he's got some attention. Peter Molynux, Shigeru Miyamoto
    • Your analogy is garbage.

      The names you reel of do not create games in a vacuum - with the exception of Carmack they're little more than figureheads these days anyway.

      A 'hotshot' (media whore) designer is nothing without development talent to back them up.

  • Poetic justice (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Psychochild ( 64124 ) <psychochildNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Sunday March 07, 2004 @05:18AM (#8489988) Homepage
    It's a bit funny, because at the 2001 GDC Mr. Rubin had a talk entitled "Coming Out Of the Garage". He spoke about how independent developers need to "grow up" in order to get out of the garage, and how they need to accept publishers as vital to the process of game development. Guess he's seen what happens from that attitude. ;)

    Make no mistake about it, the publisher holds most of the cards. The developer is at the publisher's whim for the most part, since the publisher holds the purse strings. The few developers you see that are recognized, namely id, Blizzard, etc, were first successful outside of publisher influence. Take id for example; they started with shareware games. Even before DOOM and Wolfenstein 3D they had Commander Keen. Once DOOM hit the big time through shareware channels, id was able to negotiate a favorable deal with publishers to get the game on shelves. Their next games were sweet deals with publishers because they were already recognized; the Quake games had practically guaranteed audiences, the publisher just needed to get boxes on the shelves.

    And, for the apologists that say the developer takes big risks, I'll have to call you on that bullshit. Great game development studios go out of business all the time, so obviously some risk is assumed by the developers as well, even if they have a wildly successful game series.

    The main problem, in my opinion, is that games cost a lot to develop these days, and small companies rarely have the money to create a modern game. In the past, creating a game like Wolf3D was the result of a fairly small team of people. These days you need lots of developers to create high production value assets; the market demands the shiniest graphics and the coolest explosions. A great game without the expected level of polish is going to be ignored for the most part.

    Yes, I realize that some people can look past the exterior to see a great game, but it's SO much easier to market a prettier game. My own game Meridian 59 [meridian59.com] shows this perfectly. The game has a DOOM-type software rendering engine, and gets consistently passed over in favor of the newer, shinier competitor. We've tried to develop a game that offers what other games on the market lack, namely balanced and fun Player vs. Player (PvP) combat. Yeah, this is considered a niche market, but not as niche as our subscriber numbers might otherwise indicate. (As a note, we are working on a significant engine upgrade [meridian59.com]. [Warning: large images.])

    In the end, publishers hold all the cards, and the developers aren't going to be able to do much about it. The real power lies in the game buyers, who can choose to either buy what's marketed to them, or they can go look for the independent game developers that are creating innovative products. But, for now, the alternative to taking publisher money is to focus on smaller-scale niche titles by developing a taste for Ramen noodles. There's a reason why the phrase "starving artist" exists.

    My thoughts,
    • Rubins is just being a whiny little bitch. Making Crash Bandicoot and subsequently ditching the team that did it isn't the way you appreciate talent. Plus his main game is kissing ass (how far up Shu's ass can he stick his nose? Go to E3 and find out!)

  • I don't claim to be an expert, but it seems to me that movies and games are already fairly similar in the way they are promoted and perceived.

    First comes the title.

    Movies = Jaws (I, II, etc.)
    Game = Doom (I, II, etc.)

    Second comes the onscreen talent. This is who everyone knows and loves.

    Movies = Bill Murray
    Games = Crash Bandicoot

    Then most people don't know anything after that.

    Do you know who directed/wrote/produced "Stripes"? Probably not. Same with games. The studios don't control this, the peopl
    • Actually, there are lots of famous Directors/Producers (Steven Spielberg, Francis Ford Coppola, Stanley Kubrick, James Cameron, George Lucas, Jerry Bruckhiemer, Tim Burton, etc.). There are even a few famous screenwriters such as Carrie Fisher and Michael Crichton.

      Famous actors/characters are the norm for both industries just as having a famous Director/Producer/Scriptwriter is, pretty much, as rare as having a famous Game Developer such as John Carmack, Sid Meyer, and Roberta Williams (Williams is a retro
    • Do you know who directed/wrote/produced "Stripes"? Probably not.

      Actually, yes I do. It was directed by Ivan Reitman, the man behind "Ghostbusters", "Kindergarten Cop" and "Dave." He's a pretty big comedy director.

      Off the top of my head, I think Harold Ramis (sp?) was one of the actors in Stripes and I think he helped write it. He has also written such films as Groundhog Day, Ghostbusters and Analyze This. He's also an actor in Ghostbusters. Mind you, this is without the aid of IMDB.

      You're right, thoug

      • Yeah, I know some people know, but it isn't that common. I.E. I think you'd agree that MOST people who would know that Bill Murray was in Stripes, wouldn't know who directed it.

        I'm just saying it's the same with video games and it's not something the gaming industry can really change the way the article suggested.
  • publishers dont hang on to decent talent long enough to make stars out of them.

    to expect a company like EA to put a dev logo or a programmers name on the box is stupid, because EA will be dismanlting the dev team or firing the programmer within a couple of months anyway.

    and for the most part they wont follow up the game with much support anyway, so its not like they have to hold on to a name so you can know that the person that dev'd the game really wants to make it right and fix any issues you've found.

Slashdot Top Deals

"How to make a million dollars: First, get a million dollars." -- Steve Martin

Close