Corporate Interference Leads to Bad Games, Says THQ Exec

[WhiteTigerShiro]

This is true for pretty much anything. I work at a Domino's currently, and anytime corporate bigwigs are in town checking the stores to make sure that we're sticking to their rules, our productivity just plummets, but hey at least we pass the inspection... I guess. Not to mention that my forehead is getting sore from face-palming so much new policies they keep throwing at us. It's basically a bunch of morons who have never worked at an actual store (or did, but it was so long ago they forgot what it was like) telling people how the store should be run.

 

[DTWolfwood]

Micro-management always leads to fail. Bosses need to learn this! Unless your staff is completely retarded, just let them do what they have to.

 

[MindBullets]

A least someone in the industry gets it. That's good to know.

Otherwise, Executive Meddling is still too close to call. There were some games that suffered from Executive Meddling.

Are you a troper [http://tvtropes.org] by any chance?

 

[Therumancer]

Well, the guys putting the money into the game are always going to demand a say in what is produced, as their bottom line is always to get more money out of the process than what they put in. For them, playing it by the numbers (what is going to sell) is the wise thing to do, because they really don't care about games other than as a way of making money.

With a company like EA, consider that their change of policy has won them support from gamers, but at the same time "The Escapist" has run other articles with others in the industry calling them stupid, and I believe pointing out that they haven't been as big a success on paper than they were when they were playing things by the corperate numbers.

Now ideally we'd have a situation where more producers and executives cared about the games themselves, but that isn't likely to happen until such a time as we have "Generation Y" filling those roles, which could take decades. Even so, it takes a certain kind of mentality to get into a position where you have tens or hundreds of millions of dollars to invest.

Trust me, I slam the corperate mentality all the time, and think it needs to change. I'm just saying that I understand the issue and all the idealism in the world is not going to change it.

Understand, a big part of the problem is that the guy(s) with the money riding on it don't just care about making a profit. If the numbers show that changing the lead of a game to a "Space Marine" could net them say 51 million dollars in profit unstead of 50, then they are going to demand what gives the least risk for the most profit. After all to the producer they probably figure (by the numbers) that most of the sales happen based on hype, and through pre-orders. Creating an "appealing" hero by the numbers means strong initial sales, even if the game blows chips overall... and what do they care if they make more money? If it doesn't work out for franchise potential they can just finance something else once they have the cash.

There is no easy solution since you really can't force a group of people to be satisfied with making a good profit, instead of constantly chasing a monster profit.

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

I really love THQ... they go from up to up all the time even though they seem like a bit of a niche company.

Warhammer 40,000 and relatively obscure Russian books anyone?

Don't feel too bad. They publish the UFC games, which were crazy successful.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

Don't feel too bad. They publish the UFC games, which were crazy successful.

Yeah but it still doesn't really seem like a 'mainstream' IP...

Maybe I'm still too dizzy over the whole Warhammer 40,000 Space Marine thing but THQ just seem less profit obsessed than most.

 

[eels05]

So instead you end up with the smorgasboard of bland games that we have a present,which are the end result of accountants playing it safe.

What else do you think going to happen? Look at the movie industry, how much money is spent on the average dumb Hollywood summer blockbuster versus how much is spent on French art house movie. In the real world risk/reward comes into play, you not going to get any sane person to spend $25 million on game about gay French soldiers because you never going to sell enough to get your money back. When there is no creative control imposed you end up with films like Battlefield Earth and Heaven's Gate. Both those films bankrupted the company that made them and real people lost their jobs.

I think the general gist of this thread is that once the creative concept has been decided on and everyones happy,then the money people back off and let the creative people do their thing.
Its about being willing to accept slightly more lost time and money,and the people with the money being realistic about placing unrealistic and stifeling restraints on the creative process.The return generally would be so much greater with a quality product.

There's a certain effect that this accountant mentality has that lowers standards.Like I said in an earlier post,I've worked in 4 and 5 star hotels for the past decade,Glitzy on the face of it but go 'back of house' and you find people on salaries working way over their paid for hours to acheive labour costs set by tight budgets set by people who work for tight fisted multi millionares.
I see the similarities in the game making industry.The end result is people pushing out a mediocre product because its just not worth beating your head against a wall or striving to achieve a higher standard when the buisness of making money becomes the sole focus of everyones efforts.Restaurants become about making money,Games become about making money,somewhere in the middle of that theres meant to be a product people are meant to enjoy.
Whats annoying to me is they naively think theres a glimmer of a chance that their achieving both with this cost cutting method.They're not.So they should just be loud and proud about being purveyors of mediocrity.

 

[Albino Boo]

I think the general gist of this thread is that once the creative concept has been decided on and everyones happy,then the money people back off and let the creative people do their thing.
Its about being willing to accept slightly more lost time and money,and the people with the money being realistic about placing unrealistic and stifeling restraints on the creative process.The return generally would be so much greater with a quality product.

There's a certain effect that this accountant mentality has that lowers standards.Like I said in an earlier post,I've worked in 4 and 5 star hotels for the past decade,Glitzy on the face of it but go 'back of house' and you find people on salaries working way over their paid for hours to acheive labour costs set by tight budgets set by people who work for tight fisted multi millionares.
I see the similarities in the game making industry.The end result is people pushing out a mediocre product because its just not worth beating your head against a wall or striving to achieve a higher standard when the buisness of making money becomes the sole focus of everyones efforts.Restaurants become about making money,Games become about making money,somewhere in the middle of that theres meant to be a product people are meant to enjoy.
Whats annoying to me is they naively think theres a glimmer of a chance that their achieving both with this cost cutting method.They're not.So they should just be loud and proud about being purveyors of mediocrity.

This were you wrong, large corporations aren't owned by tight fisted millionaires but there by large owned by the general public. Most shares in any large corporation are owned by the likes of insurance companies and pension funds and they are under legal duty to maximise returns at lowest risk possible. If your a pension fund manager and you have say $25 million you can afford to take high risk with. You have choice you put into activision, a company that made 2% profit last year or you can put into an Indian conglomerate which made 12% last year (12%-8% return in India is not usual atm). Both companies are a have high risk profile but there is 10% difference in return. The big problem that video games industry has is that perception its a high risk, medium return business. They only way to reassure the large institutional investors is with tight control of the process. Its that or you don't get the money.

 

[Bravo315]

I really love THQ... they go from up to up all the time even though they seem like a bit of a niche company.

Warhammer 40,000 and relatively obscure Russian books anyone?

I agree. And Metro 2033 was one of the first (generation 7) games announced with 3D support too. uDraw looks exactly like the creative sub-platform the Wii needs right now to compete with Move & Kinect. I just wish 4A would port both Metro's to the PS3.

 

[the_pleasure_is_mine]

I agree. And Metro 2033 was one of the first (generation 7) games announced with 3D support too. uDraw looks exactly like the creative sub-platform the Wii needs right now to compete with Move & Kinect. I just wish 4A would port both Metro's to the PS3.

I sincerely doubt the first Metro will be ported. However I do believe the second is multiplatform.

 

[Bravo315]

I agree. And Metro 2033 was one of the first (generation 7) games announced with 3D support too. uDraw looks exactly like the creative sub-platform the Wii needs right now to compete with Move & Kinect. I just wish 4A would port both Metro's to the PS3.

I sincerely doubt the first Metro will be ported. However I do believe the second is multiplatform.

Hooray! I'll be keeping my fingers crossed then