How much do you believe game company's are only in it for your $$$?

Alex Tom

New member
Sep 25, 2011
64
0
0
I think all game company's are in it for the money at the end of the day...but im ok with that
 

NiPah

New member
May 8, 2009
1,084
0
0
How much do you believe game company's are only in it for your $$$?
Thats easy to answer, of course they aren't in it only for the money, but the question gets much harder when you get into how much % of a shit they care about their customers and how much % of a shit they give about feeding their families.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
By "video game companies" do you mean developers or publishers?
From what I can tell, developers are normally in it for the fun of it, because each game is their work of art. There are some that focus too much on money for one reason or another (sometimes just to secure a foot hold and money for bigger, better projects) and some like Volition in Saints Row 3 just get bullied by publishers.
Publishers are the ones normally in it solely for the money, as most businesses are. EA and Activiation are the main offenders, Microsoft doesn't do enough for anyone to notice, Bethy is normally pretty tame along with most other publishers.
 

triggrhappy94

New member
Apr 24, 2010
3,376
0
0
Caleco said:
How about Bethesda? it seems like all their games are really good but very similar. Do you think their just pumping them out?
Bethy studios--and Obsidian for NV--used the same engines for Oblivion, Skyrim, and Fallout 3, which is why there's the similarities. I don't think they're just pumping them out though, seeing how much time they put into each one.
 

Hal10k

New member
May 23, 2011
850
0
0
It is the primary aim of any well-run privately-run organization to turn a profit. All else is secondary. You could start a business with the sole intent of making the best games possible, but if those games don't make you any money, you won't be able to produce any more. All business practices are ultimately a means to the end of propagating that business.

This in no way indicates that the aim of making money runs against the immediate interest of the consumer. Games are a luxury good where supply is practically a non-issue and the demand is fairly elastic with price. This means that the only way for a business to ensure high sales of games at a certain price level is to ensure that demand remains high. In short, it is in the best interest of the company to make sure that you, the consumer, want to buy something. This has both arguably positive and negative consequences.
 

Trippy Turtle

Elite Member
May 10, 2010
2,118
0
41
If you want to make serious money then you don't become a game designer. I believe some companys seek to maximize profits at the cost of originality but the game designers I would think are in it for the games.
 

LookingGlass

New member
Jul 6, 2011
1,218
0
0
My over-simplified opinion is that the publishing companies are only in it for the money, but the developers (mostly) genuinely want to make great games.
 

Something Amyss

Aswyng and Amyss
Dec 3, 2008
24,759
0
0
Scrumpmonkey said:
1. There is a big distinction between the people who make the games; The Developers and the people who market and mostly fund the game; The Publishers.

2. Gaming is a business and so $$$ are a necessity for any kind of creative content.
I clicked on this mostly to say point 1. As to point 2, this is true, but that doesn't mean they need to be the monetary obsessed fiends we've seen of late.
 

Mikeyfell

Elite Member
Aug 24, 2010
2,784
0
41
Valve is pretty much the only company that makes great games because they want to make great games, instead of for the money.

Proof you ask?
You would have payed full price for Half Life 3, 4, 5, and 6 but they did not make them.
They gave away Portal and Team Fortress 2 for free.
They gave Left 4 Dead to everyone who bought Left 4 Dead 2 on Steam

I don't know any other developer that is that selfless
 

The Abhorrent

New member
May 7, 2011
321
0
0
As it's been noted already, there's a fairly big difference between the publisher and the developper; especially now that the industry is rather large. Before the last decade or so, many more developpers had to publish their own games; this is before people who were mainly interested in making money saw that the industry was as profittable as it is now, leaving only those who were genuinely interested in it to both fun and work their craft.

The current state of things means publishers are, for the most part, interested in making money; publically traded ones (EA, probably Activision as well), doubly so. There's plenty of people who are able to invest in the games industry without knowing any of the quirks involved, and it's hardly surprising that many of them are looking to make the quick buck rather than provide quality products. Keep in mind that these are the publishers, not the actual developpers.

Developpers are, obviously, those who actually work on the game. Like a lot of artisans however, they're not always the best at funding/marketing themselves nor their product. With the industry today, it's much easier to be just a developper; in earlier years you likely had to pull double-duty as a businessman as well. This separation means that game development is much more subject to the whims of the publisher rather than the creative design of the developper; after all, who has the money? This is why there's a lot more sequels, DLC (day-one DLC in particular), and other obvious cash grabs; some may be of respectable quality, but the volume of them is the bigger indicator. While developpers do have some degree of freedom, as someone has to come up with the ideas, they have a much harder time getting them approved.

Strangely enough, the best products tend to come from developpers who are able to fund themselves. The big products who are driven by people with both the skills to create a game and run a business at the same time. While pure creativity might seem like a better idea, these are the guys who know how to make things work. They also have the power to delay their games in order to refine the final product, something developpers under large publishers seldom ever receive.

---

I guess that explanation doesn't quite answer the question; but if it's any indication, it's definitely not everyone who's in the industry only for the money. Some most certainly are, and being a publicly-traded corporation will almost certainly attract those individuals; however, these ones are actually rather separated from the actual game development.

Developpers on the other hand are generally in on it because they enjoy doing it, and more of them are getting into it now that they can get outside funding for their projects instead of having to pay for everything out of their own pocket. They can have great ideas, but their business sense can be rather.... well, terrible. Some may not know how to or when to drop a bad idea, and the publishers may not know when to say it's a bad idea either because they may have no clue what is a bad idea; it may be a grand idea, but the fundamental thing is that neither party truly knows what works and what doesn't.

That's why I said the best games come from people who are willing to play both sides of the coin. The ability to both come up with the idea and the know-how to see it through. While they may not be able to truely compete with the products from larger publishers initially, these are also the ones who will be able to get started on their own instead of having to go them; should they opt to go with the publisher, they may also know how to not let too much intellectual property and profits go to the publisher during the contract negotiations.

What I'm trying to say is that the best games come from people who aren't in it just for the money... but at least they know how stay in business. Their main aim in the end is the quality of the final product, and they're using their knack for business to see that the game actually gets made. It gives them a lot more control over the end result, even if that means they have more work to do.

Then again; no pain, no gain.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
I don't think there is enough inovation in gaming and when there is it gets shot down by gamers that are fed so much of the samey, dull games they pay money for they feel the need to defend them and shoot down anything that does it different or better. /rant

But I do think its fairly obvious when a company definately isn't in it for the money. Companies that are only in it for the money are much more ambiguous.
 

Flailing Escapist

New member
Apr 13, 2011
1,602
0
0
Mikeyfell said:
Valve is pretty much the only company that makes great games because they want to make great games, instead of for the money.
I see your point and raise you a Remedy [http://www.remedygames.com/]. They are another developer I'd say is in gaming to make good games.

As well as Obsidian [http://www.obsidianent.com/] while we're at it.
 

CheckD3

New member
Dec 9, 2009
1,181
0
0
It's the teams that actually make the games that want the games to be good. Problem is, they have to work with the publishers, who want the buck, so they'll take what could be a great game, and force watered down stuff from 'good selling' games, so the product gets crapped on.

I think game devs try their best to give great products, but when the suits who don't care about quality set perimeters, the games turn to shit
 

Akimoto

New member
Nov 22, 2011
459
0
0
I think they used to care but when the company grew too big, out went the passion for gaming.
 

Azure9

New member
Sep 19, 2010
70
0
0
There is a difference between a game company wanting money and a game company doing unethical business practices in order to raise money. For example Bethesda created a beautiful game named oblivion because they wanted money. This is fine but what's not fine is Bethesda creating the horse armor DLC and wanting money for this tiny update for your horse.
 

FalloutJack

Bah weep grah nah neep ninny bom
Nov 20, 2008
15,489
0
0
Caleco said:
Here's an honest question: do you believe game company's actually have a love for gaming and perfecting games or just want to see how many dollars they can syphon from your wallet?
You're asking an all-or-nothing question with no middle ground. Therefore, the answer is Up-Diagonal-3.

(In all seriousness, some are yse and some are no.)
 

DarkRyter

New member
Dec 15, 2008
3,078
0
0
It's really on a case by case basis.

To some, they make games in order to make money.

To others, they make money in order to make games.
 

Vykrel

New member
Feb 26, 2009
1,317
0
0
its mainly the publishers that are the greedy ones. i wish more developers could afford to stay independant. i cant count the amount of times where a developer has wanted to give free DLC or sell their games at a lower price but the publishers wouldnt allow it.