On The Need For New Videogame Funding Models 29
Thanks to Costik.com for pointing to entrepreneur Gordon Gould's comments on possible new videogame funding avenues, as he notes "the coming console shift to Xbox 2 and the Playstation 3 is going to once again raise the bar on development costs", meaning "a shrinking number of titles per publisher slate w/increased pressure on those titles to be out of the ballpark blockbusters." He suggests that "developers' ability to gain more control over their destiny is handicapped by the relative scarcity of funding sources", but this may be changing, as investors from outside the industry start to fund development (as seen recently at MMO creator Turbine.) However, Greg Costikyan weighs in with a response, arguing that "...even looking at something as goofy and hit-driven as the game industry, an investor is already taking a big risk, and his or her instinct is going to be the same as the publishers': be conservative in what you fund."
unfortunate consequences... (Score:5, Interesting)
Even Nintendo's very creative games this generation, Pikmin and Viewtiful Joe, were made (I'm totally speculating) only because they were pet projects of titans of the industry.
Re:unfortunate consequences... (Score:1)
Re:unfortunate consequences... (Score:2)
Re:Doesn't this come back to fundemental CS flaws? (Score:2)
Smart compiler won't help, the problem isn't optimizing code. Higher level languages don't do anything a library doesn't do. What you need to do is write reusable pieces of code, and then reuse them. Better yet if they're
Oh I'll tell you what the world doesn't need... (Score:2, Funny)
How 'bout you take a play from your own book and give up your recreational nannying to go dig a well in Rawanda. 'K
Re:The world doesn't need more video games. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The world doesn't need more video games. (Score:2, Insightful)
Fool!
The risk? (Score:5, Insightful)
All investment is risk, but the key to smart investment is that you try to minimise risk. Not many people worry how their money is multiplied, and to most investors, one computer game is the same as another. They would care little what games are made, as long as their investment grows. Computer Game publishers know this and therefore tune their business plans accordingly.
And, the general gaming public doesn't help by buying $hit games en masse.
It's a little disappointing that the gaming industry seems to be going the way of the movie industry. No risks, nothing interesting except for rare 'arthouse' movies.
The important question is, what can be done?
Re:The risk? (Score:2)
Re:The risk? (Score:4, Interesting)
As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, the hardest part of making a game is the artwork. And yet, strangely, the artwork isn't the most important part of the game! (Some will argue that, I'm aware.) The gameplay, dare I say it, is the most important part. If publishers instead concentrated on making good games, and skimped on the artwork perhaps, wouldn't that decrease the cost of the development cycle, and therefore mitigate the whole problem the article discusses?
Re:The risk? (Score:2, Informative)
Take this game for instance: Beyond Good and Evil. It was critically praised, is a fantastic game, and came out for all 3 consoles AND the PC but it didn't sell(you can pick it up for $19.99 on the XBox or GCN).
Good and even good AND innovative doesn't mean sales. So it's always the safe bet, yet another F
X Box 2 (Score:4, Funny)
So... (Score:5, Insightful)
(before you shout ngage, read where I said about a *reasonable* amount of power...)
Re:So... (Score:2)
I'll tell you when I still think so after E3.
Re:So... (Score:1)
Lots of good games out for it too. In fact, more of em than for any other handheld! A decade of games, some of which are amongst the best/most addictive
Re:So... (Score:2)
Games should be cheaper to make (Score:3, Interesting)
You'd think hardware manufacturers would make dev kits that make it easy to make games. That way games could be produced faster, hence cheaper.
I remember talk of Nintendo's kit that they used to build Wind Waker and FF:Crystal Chronicles. They were supposed to be able to build games in under a year with it. Anyone know if it is working?
Also, the recently resigned Nintendo president set up some sort of fund to help pay for games:
As reported last year, Yamauchi-san announced plans to establish a game development fund in Japan. Thereby, Yamauchi-san will invest venture capital into budding game developers and related visionaries. [gamersmark.com]
Re:Games should be cheaper to make (Score:3, Interesting)
However, you're spot on about content, though. It seems that we're heading towards project teams with a handful of programmers and a army of artists, animators, modellers and musicians.
Re:Games should be cheaper to make (Score:2)
Rather, I'd say it was competition driving up develpoment costs. One company spends 20 million making a game that sells millions of copies and makes a big profit, so others companies see that and try to make a blockbuster themselves.
America's Army? (Score:2)
On the private side, some donationware (freely given) or tipware (allowing you to tip extra if you like it) experiments would be nice.
For fuck's sake, just give us some FUN GAMES! (Score:2)
Software Publishers (Score:2)
As an anecdote, I