Now That You're Done Firing Everyone...

[Shamus Young]

Now That You're Done Firing Everyone...

Shamus Young gives some handy pointers for saving your game company from financial disaster.

Read Full Article

 

[Xvito]

Well Shamus, if you don't like it, then remember: there are five million ways to kill a C.E.O [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Jotps9V4as].

Also, how come your articles are always so much better than everyone else'?

 

[Andy_Panthro]

Can't agree enough about the graphics race, although I've been saying it for years. Trouble is, I do quite like these new games with their fancy graphics. Batman was particularly good looking.

However, The Witcher showed what you can do with an existing engine to create a great game. It's also much better looking than other Aurora games I can think of.

 

[Swaki]

wow, when you first embrace a word you go all the way don't you, in that paragraph alone the word causal was there more than anyplace else, ive seen popcap reviews with less use of the word.

and i really liked the idea of lowering the price of games instead of increasing it, once gaming goes democratic you have my vote good sir.

oh and in case you needed proof of art style before graphically realism, zeno clash and machinarium where two of the best looking games of 09 (in my opinion, don't yell at me, please)

 

[Jhereg42]

Another thing I think contributed to a lot of failing studios over the last two years was the absolute glut of MMO offerings. It seemed that after the success of WoW everybody was trying to get in on the subscription model. I understand why, ActiBlizz can basically run their entire business on the WoW revenues alone, but I think the biggest problem that the other MMOs ran into was that there were just too darn many of them trying to grab the other potential MMO players out their that they starved each other.

 

[Raithnor]

I have a feeling the "buying other companies"-bit is more about acquiring licenses, copyrights, proprietary tools, et cetera than the actual company itself. If they did nothing else with the company, and just had people pay them for licensing permissions they could make their investment back.

That's supposed to be the underlying logic, doesn't mean they still don't do stupid things.

 

[Jenx]

Sorry, but when your advice is more or less "Stop being stupid!" then the chances of anyone actually following it are....slim at best.

 

[Calatar]

The "good graphics" becoming more expensive and untenable in the long run is something I've been thinking about. What happens when games stop where they are? For PC games, I imagine it could give video card companies a very hard time once gamers realize that they don't need the top of the line card for ANYTHING. Or it could spike the sales in midline cards, since everybody knows they'll be good for a while. (I kind of doubt it. But game development absolutely drives most of the market for video processing technology.)

I can't help but think that competition for beautiful graphics between games will prevent from stopping the advancement of graphics altogether. Maybe the gaming studios will decide that casual gamers don't need good graphics though, and move in that direction.

 

[Dorkmaster Flek]

Shamus, I love your columns. When I read that EA was firing 1500 people, then spending $300 million on buying a casual game company, I thought that was the dumbest thing I've ever seen. Gorram morons.

 

[squid5580]

Can't agree enough about the graphics race, although I've been saying it for years. Trouble is, I do quite like these new games with their fancy graphics. Batman was particularly good looking.

However, The Witcher showed what you can do with an existing engine to create a great game. It's also much better looking than other Aurora games I can think of.

And there is the one he missed. Stop making new engines for every game. Jesus if they work use them. I promise only a select few will notice or even care.

 

[Jared]

Good article and I agree. The problem is that all the corporate suits just want money these days and they think pushing the boundaries of graphics is the bees-knees. Ill admit it plays a part. But, if you sacrifice everything else in terms of gameplay just so you bring us something that 'looks good'? Its just sad.

Also..casual gamers!!!! *FOAM!*

 

[Kayin Amoh]

Yeah. See, this is the best selling game of all time and it's the one game that was priced 60$ instead of 50$.

The marketing for that game was pretty shrewd in the UK - first they get everyone whipped up into a lather about selling it for a mind-bogglingly inflated £55, and on the day of release most of the major outlets slashed the price to approximately £25, which is about what you'd expect to pay for a fairly new second hand game. As far as first week sales go, it's unlikely that particular stunt didn't make any difference to the sales figures.

 

[theSovietConnection]

I advocate use of part-time gamers instead of casual. It's a much more suitable description, to me.

Anyways

Lower your prices.

Really. Just try it. Put a new game out for $30 instead of $60 and see if you don't sell enough units to make up the difference. You are not the only industry with money troubles. Things are tough all over. Lots of people are broke. Wouldn't it be better to sell customers your game at half price than to sell them nothing at all for the full price?

That's a great idea, but:

Modern Warfare 2

Yeah. See, this is the best selling game of all time and it's the one game that was priced 60$ instead of 50$.
The only way consumers can dictate market prices is with their purchase decisions. Everyone hates Bobby Kotick for saying games should be more expensive instead of less and yet, everyone and their mum goes out and buys the more expensive game.

In his place, what would go through my mind is "Cool, they really like paying more! Any shred of humanity I had that made me slightly doubt my decision has been proven wrong!".

Yeah, pretty much what Mr. Tea said. Though there is a reason I refuse to buy new Activision games ever again.

 

[Mordwyl]

I still am oblivious as to why Modern Warfare 2 was so successful. Yes, I get it, it sold enough copies to buy a small country. However having seen it in action made me wonder if the sales were justified, or question the customers' taste.

 

[ben---neb]

Lower your prices.

Really. Just try it. Put a new game out for $30 instead of $60 and see if you don't sell enough units to make up the difference. You are not the only industry with money troubles. Things are tough all over. Lots of people are broke. Wouldn't it be better to sell customers your game at half price than to sell them nothing at all for the full price?

That's a great idea, but:

Modern Warfare 2

Yeah. See, this is the best selling game of all time and it's the one game that was priced 60$ instead of 50$.
The only way consumers can dictate market prices is with their purchase decisions. Everyone hates Bobby Kotick for saying games should be more expensive instead of less and yet, everyone and their mum goes out and buys the more expensive game.

In his place, what would go through my mind is "Cool, they really like paying more! Any shred of humanity I had that made me slightly doubt my decision has been proven wrong!".

True, but the really intelligent ones would hopefully realise that MW2 is an exception to the usual rule. MW2 is an established brand that speaks of polish, quality and in terms of hours invested into the game not too bad value for money. And the hype about it helped as well.

Most games aren't like that. Most games need to drop in price. I'd happily buy more games if I could get them for £10 instead of £25. Case in point: Serious Sam HD, on Steam £6.11, wouldn't have brought it but it was under £7!

 

[Andronicus]

Great article as always, one of the main highlights of my week. I liked the one about lowering the prices, although I guess you could say that's maybe a little too obvious (I mean, who doesn't want cheaper games?). I really don't understand why they hired all those other people in the first place. Once they've finished with one project, why not put them on another one? They are actually making, you know, more games, aren't they? Saying they hired too many to begin with just doesn't cut it; that would be one of the worst examples of bad company financing I've ever seen.

Executive 1: We've just started some new games and we need more people to make them. You'll have full access to the company assets. Employ as many people as you can find.

Executive 2: What are we going to do with them once the games are finished?

Executive 1: ...

Executive 2: ... ah yes. Of course. How silly of me.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

They buy the game companies for the original ideas that they came up with so they can sit on them while they trundle out the same crap year after year, only pulling out these ideas when someone else releases a game with an idea very similar to the one they essentially paid $300 million for.

Alot of game and software companies make most of the workers sign project contracts, they are hired for as long as it takes to make the game.

I agree about the graphics, before new graphics engines were released every 6 weeks, companies licensed out existing engines and found new and improved ways of making old dogs do new tricks.

 

[Therumancer]

Shamus:

My thoughts might not be correct but they are the same ones I've had since the beginning.

I do not think that the gaming industry *IS* in trouble because a lot of reports I've seen have talked about this as a multi-billion dollar industry that was raking in huge piles of cash. A report at odds with the "oh noes, we're in trouble, we must lay people off" messages we're getting.

The question thus occurs as to why people would be getting laid off. The answer to that is pretty simplistic. Less employees means more money. Not to mention that a lot of it comes down to WHO you lay off. If you lay people off that were hired under a contract that costs you a lot to keep them on in terms of raises, benefits, etc... you don't have to pay those things. In return hiring new employees lets you start them out at the bottom of the salary charts so to speak. Consider you can promise lavish long-term benefits packages and such if you don't plan for anyone except for a select few to actually collect them.

I think EA for example is lying about it's lack of profitability. Really, I'm not buying it. Maybe they might not have hit their "projected growth" which to their big wigs is the same thing as losing money, but for the rest of us it's not even close. They probably bought a casual games company to broaden their market (as you mentioned), without nessicarly sacrificing their other areas anymore than they planned to begin with. The current recession just provides a conveinently deep cloak under which to hide the dagger they intended for their employees all along.

Continuously cycling people is currently a popular corperate trick as well. Right now with everyone laying off, a pool of skilled games industry workers is created. The various game companies can hire new people with skills from their old jobs at an entry level, and then dump them in a few years back into the pool and get someone else. The end result is experienced employees to do their job, at newbie wages. Some industries have coordinated things like that intentionally at the top, and given the way how they have coordinated for price increases already I wouldn't put it past them. Start looking for a trend where EA picks up former employees from other companies, and other companies have projects being done by former EA employees.

Also some of these companies sort of deserve what they got. Funcom for example seemed to perpetuate a giant like/scam on the MMORPG community via Age Of Conan, promising things that while possible they apparently had no intention of keeping. That game would have been incredible if it had what they said it was going to have even a few months before release. Given their investment I'd believe they are in trouble for real, and honestly I can't say they don't deserve it.