It is not that "he did not want". It is more like they refused his idea. Let's put the thing in the right order here.
Publishers never would make enough money with Space Sims and CR just proved that, since they did not pass of 70.000 copies sold so far and probably has just 6 or 7 million dollars for real (since those numbers are clearly used for hype purposes only and he never would be capable to prove that numbers). But even if that number were truth, which they are not, still won't be enough to call attention of the publishers, at least big publishers, since CR look to the other side, by publishers that are beginners for example.
This talking about publishers, they used just for marketing, but they are so newbies in saying things, that they are got by their own words, since CR already say, for example, that the real reason to "PC Only" is more like not having good deals in Consoles and because by his own words "there is no competition on PC".
But, you know... Fans like to believe in fairy tales and marketing speech.
I wish I knew what the fuck you are rambling on about....
It is not that "he did not want". It is more like they refused his idea. Let's put the thing in the right order here.
Publishers never would make enough money with Space Sims and CR just proved that, since they did not pass of 70.000 copies sold so far and probably has just 6 or 7 million dollars for real (since those numbers are clearly used for hype purposes only and he never would be capable to prove that numbers). But even if that number were truth, which they are not, still won't be enough to call attention of the publishers, at least big publishers, since CR look to the other side, by publishers that are beginners for example.
This talking about publishers, they used just for marketing, but they are so newbies in saying things, that they are got by their own words, since CR already say, for example, that the real reason to "PC Only" is more like not having good deals in Consoles and because by his own words "there is no competition on PC".
But, you know... Fans like to believe in fairy tales and marketing speech.
I wish I knew what the fuck you are rambling on about....
From Chris Roberts:
""I think the console business will be healthy for quite a while, I think the PC business, the tablet business, the mobile business, they'll all be healthy," Roberts said. "I think there's money to be made in all of them. I just like the PC business because there aren't a lot of people competing there.""
As someone who's worked on both sides of the fence (gamedev and publisher), my experience resonates very much with Chris' statements. Granted, I didn't work for any super big publishers, but the idea was similar. Ironically, as a dev, I was far more insulated from public opinion on a game than when I worked on the publisher side, and I probably cared more about the games I was involved in when I was a publisher's lackey. That's not as sinister as you may think, as a dev, I was a server rules guy who "just needed to get things working," while I was knee deep in the marketing with the publishers.
HOWEVER, as a publisher, not a single dev studio appreciated us, and I can say that with confidence because we (publisher) were constantly manipulated and lied to, and once it even devolved into a legal battle. As a publisher, our big-wigs were very interested in the illusion that they could order the studios to do/make anything they wanted, and a great many times, we clearly dipped our hands into the game-sauce a bit too many times, as the fruit of our demands almost always ended up with watered-down implementations that clearly showed that either A) the studio was understaffed to handle it or didn't really want to do what we asked. Funnily enough, some of the dev veterans at the publisher outfit wanted to gather funds and pick up some of the dead games themselves. A few times that actually happened with games that you've probably heard of, but every last one of them fizzled or eeked out a painful existence because they simply didn't get enough funding to really do enough. At that point, it was more a love affair with a shell of a game that needed to be let go.
If you can get everyone on the same team/side/vision with enough resources (which never happened for me), that's the best chance you have at following through with a title. Virtually no game has the funding necessary to do absolutely everything on its own, so publishers almost always bring something to the table, but it obviously adds more cooks to the kitchen than devs would prefer. Star Citizen is wading into more or less uncharted waters with the kind of funding they've garnered, and it's the kind of waters that most of us in the industry would love to dive into.
Bottom line: Having a huge pile of money with no strings attached to do what you need really helps your chances. If they really do have enough to do it themselves ($27 million for everything they want to do? That's a stretch in my mind), then that's great. If they find themselves lacking near the end, I'm sure they can find a publisher. Even then, having the luxury of only seeking out venture capital when the game is virtually completed is still a great place to be.
Originally posted by yevoc42 As someone who's worked on both sides of the fence (gamedev and publisher), my experience resonates very much with Chris' statements. Granted, I didn't work for any super big publishers, but the idea was similar. Ironically, as a dev, I was far more insulated from public opinion on a game than when I worked on the publisher side, and I probably cared more about the games I was involved in when I was a publisher's lackey. That's not as sinister as you may think, as a dev, I was a server rules guy who "just needed to get things working," while I was knee deep in the marketing with the publishers.
HOWEVER, as a publisher, not a single dev studio appreciated us, and I can say that with confidence because we (publisher) were constantly manipulated and lied to, and once it even devolved into a legal battle. As a publisher, our big-wigs were very interested in the illusion that they could order the studios to do/make anything they wanted, and a great many times, we clearly dipped our hands into the game-sauce a bit too many times, as the fruit of our demands almost always ended up with watered-down implementations that clearly showed that either A) the studio was understaffed to handle it or didn't really want to do what we asked. Funnily enough, some of the dev veterans at the publisher outfit wanted to gather funds and pick up some of the dead games themselves. A few times that actually happened with games that you've probably heard of, but every last one of them fizzled or eeked out a painful existence because they simply didn't get enough funding to really do enough. At that point, it was more a love affair with a shell of a game that needed to be let go.
If you can get everyone on the same team/side/vision with enough resources (which never happened for me), that's the best chance you have at following through with a title. Virtually no game has the funding necessary to do absolutely everything on its own, so publishers almost always bring something to the table, but it obviously adds more cooks to the kitchen than devs would prefer. Star Citizen is wading into more or less uncharted waters with the kind of funding they've garnered, and it's the kind of waters that most of us in the industry would love to dive into.
Bottom line: Having a huge pile of money with no strings attached to do what you need really helps your chances. If they really do have enough to do it themselves ($27 million for everything they want to do? That's a stretch in my mind), then that's great. If they find themselves lacking near the end, I'm sure they can find a publisher. Even then, having the luxury of only seeking out venture capital when the game is virtually completed is still a great place to be.
Thanx for this post. Its interesting to see it from both sides.
ATM we are at $ 28,742,930 and keep counting. We hit prob $30 mill till the end of this year. As soon as the Dogfigth Module comes out, a big chunk of new backers will rush in (if its any good). Till release $40-50Million could be achieved. Thats quite some cash for a game without PR and licence to worry about. And after the sale they make 97.5% clear profit for every digital game they sell. That is quite impressive.
article is just meant to glorify the process star citizen is using in order to get more contributions. So take it with a grain of salt.
Such as complete and total bullshit like 'you can pull the wool over a publisher's eyes but not the players'. That's Grade A bullshit right there, players are *very* easy to do this too. In fact, I think its easier to manipulate someone with an emotional investment than a financial investment.
Not saying publisher's arent often (but not always) bad and I hope star citizen does well.
Syriinx, I see the point you are trying to make but it doesn't apply in the context the Chris is trying to use it in. In your context you are talking about short term. Is it easier to trick a gamer into buying a crappy game initially than it is to convince a huge publisher that your vision unique idea is going to make a ton of money? Yes it is and In this case you are correct. But that's not the context of Chris's statement.
What he means buy this statement is that after the product is shipped you cant fool gamers. They will know instantly whether you have a good product or not. Investors after launch on the other hand can be convinced that a terrible game can be saved and to keep investing in it. Many developers have found investment capital to keep bad games running even if less and less people are playing it.
Originally posted by flizzer Without publishers we wouldnt have some amazing games. Of course they are needed. Since when is doing something for money and profit evil? This old canard.
Since greed took over how business is done anymore. I am not at all religious, but even I would consider greed to be evil.
Originally posted by flizzer Without publishers we wouldnt have some amazing games. Of course they are needed. Since when is doing something for money and profit evil? This old canard.
Since greed took over how business is done anymore. I am not at all religious, but even I would consider greed to be evil.
You may be too young to recall flizzer, but there was a time when all games were made by gamers for gamers and were either given away or sold with the hope of only making a small profit. They would of made and distributed them anyway. And at that point in time they were as you put it "amazing games".
Its al relevant my friend.
But today that is not the case, larger developers make games for one reason and one reason only to keep the corporation running. There is nothing wrong with it, its just a fact.
The take away here is that the reason that most games are made today are DIFFERENT then when games were first programmed.
Originally posted by flizzer Without publishers we wouldnt have some amazing games. Of course they are needed. Since when is doing something for money and profit evil? This old canard.
Since greed took over how business is done anymore. I am not at all religious, but even I would consider greed to be evil.
You may be too young to recall flizzer, but there was a time when all games were made by gamers for gamers and were either given away or sold with the hope of only making a small profit. They would of made and distributed them anyway. And at that point in time they were as you put it "amazing games".
Its al relevant my friend.
But today that is not the case, larger developers make games for one reason and one reason only to keep the corporation running. There is nothing wrong with it, its just a fact.
The take away here is that the reason that most games are made today are DIFFERENT then when games were first programmed.
There is a huge difference between keeping your company in the black versus cutting corners and reducing quality in order to maximize profits that you neither earn nor deserve. Today's gaming companies are hardly going to go into the red, let alone go bankrupt by making a truly quality product. History has proven that long term profits are far better for a company than short term profits, unless you're a CEO who only wants a few years of huge bonus checks before you move on to leach the next project or company.
Comments
I wish I knew what the fuck you are rambling on about....
From Chris Roberts:
""I think the console business will be healthy for quite a while, I think the PC business, the tablet business, the mobile business, they'll all be healthy," Roberts said. "I think there's money to be made in all of them. I just like the PC business because there aren't a lot of people competing there.""
As someone who's worked on both sides of the fence (gamedev and publisher), my experience resonates very much with Chris' statements. Granted, I didn't work for any super big publishers, but the idea was similar. Ironically, as a dev, I was far more insulated from public opinion on a game than when I worked on the publisher side, and I probably cared more about the games I was involved in when I was a publisher's lackey. That's not as sinister as you may think, as a dev, I was a server rules guy who "just needed to get things working," while I was knee deep in the marketing with the publishers.
HOWEVER, as a publisher, not a single dev studio appreciated us, and I can say that with confidence because we (publisher) were constantly manipulated and lied to, and once it even devolved into a legal battle. As a publisher, our big-wigs were very interested in the illusion that they could order the studios to do/make anything they wanted, and a great many times, we clearly dipped our hands into the game-sauce a bit too many times, as the fruit of our demands almost always ended up with watered-down implementations that clearly showed that either A) the studio was understaffed to handle it or
didn't really want to do what we asked. Funnily enough, some of the dev veterans at the publisher outfit wanted to gather funds and pick up some of the dead games themselves. A few times that actually happened with games that you've probably heard of, but every last one of them fizzled or eeked out a painful existence because they simply didn't get enough funding to really do enough. At that point, it was more a love affair with a shell of a game that needed to be let go.
If you can get everyone on the same team/side/vision with enough resources (which never happened for me), that's the best chance you have at following through with a title. Virtually no game has the funding necessary to do absolutely everything on its own, so publishers almost always bring something to the table, but it obviously adds more cooks to the kitchen than devs would prefer. Star Citizen is wading into more or less uncharted waters with the kind of funding they've garnered, and it's the kind of waters that most of us in the industry would love to dive into.
Bottom line: Having a huge pile of money with no strings attached to do what you need really helps your chances. If they really do have enough to do it themselves ($27 million for everything they want to do? That's a stretch in my mind), then that's great. If they find themselves lacking near the end, I'm sure they can find a publisher. Even then, having the luxury of only seeking out venture capital when the game is virtually completed is still a great place to be.
Thanx for this post. Its interesting to see it from both sides.
ATM we are at $ 28,742,930 and keep counting. We hit prob $30 mill till the end of this year. As soon as the Dogfigth Module comes out, a big chunk of new backers will rush in (if its any good). Till release $40-50Million could be achieved. Thats quite some cash for a game without PR and licence to worry about. And after the sale they make 97.5% clear profit for every digital game they sell. That is quite impressive.
Syriinx, I see the point you are trying to make but it doesn't apply in the context the Chris is trying to use it in. In your context you are talking about short term. Is it easier to trick a gamer into buying a crappy game initially than it is to convince a huge publisher that your vision unique idea is going to make a ton of money? Yes it is and In this case you are correct. But that's not the context of Chris's statement.
What he means buy this statement is that after the product is shipped you cant fool gamers. They will know instantly whether you have a good product or not. Investors after launch on the other hand can be convinced that a terrible game can be saved and to keep investing in it. Many developers have found investment capital to keep bad games running even if less and less people are playing it.
Since greed took over how business is done anymore. I am not at all religious, but even I would consider greed to be evil.
You may be too young to recall flizzer, but there was a time when all games were made by gamers for gamers and were either given away or sold with the hope of only making a small profit. They would of made and distributed them anyway. And at that point in time they were as you put it "amazing games".
Its al relevant my friend.
But today that is not the case, larger developers make games for one reason and one reason only to keep the corporation running. There is nothing wrong with it, its just a fact.
The take away here is that the reason that most games are made today are DIFFERENT then when games were first programmed.
There is a huge difference between keeping your company in the black versus cutting corners and reducing quality in order to maximize profits that you neither earn nor deserve. Today's gaming companies are hardly going to go into the red, let alone go bankrupt by making a truly quality product. History has proven that long term profits are far better for a company than short term profits, unless you're a CEO who only wants a few years of huge bonus checks before you move on to leach the next project or company.