Jimquisition: Companies Exist To Make Money

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Therumancer said:
Again, wrong.
This is not me defending my trade, I now work in an independent studio, and we simply have to work as much as we can to release the best product we can. This is me explaining a process which often may seem unprofessional to an unexperienced observer. A process which is actually very intricate and requires a lot of systems working together that you can only really appreciate when you really see them in action together.

I have found a report in Maxim ( I suppose it's this one: "why many game developers drive ferraris" ), which is hardly what you could call an in-depth analysis or even an article at all. But it states that the managing positions -lead designers, lead artists, and sound designers etc in an ELITE AAA company, make a lot of money- no breakdown as to what senior, junior or temp positions make. Also note, that the highest paid position in game development is listed as MARKETING AND BUSINESS! (SUITS!) (almost twice as much as any other position) But NOT actually part of the hard development team -completely administrative-.
As stated these numbers are only viable in HUGE companies with IN-HOUSE teams, such as Blizzard or Ubisoft. Middle range AAA developers, who are actually under control of bigger publishing companies, such as Viseral games or even Infinity Ward don't count directly with nearly as many resources, and direct payment is much lower. They are also forced to accept to certain strict conditions from a publisher (many famous cases, such as Yager being forced by the publisher to place an unnecesary multiplayer mode into Spec-Ops, or even Viceral with the microtransaction debacle, Or the really unfortunate case of Team bondi and Rockstar), and require to fulfill the requirements of the publisher (not the other way around!).

However, just as a figure, As a game programmer where I live, I need many very specific, very advanced skills that are extremely scarce. I know a few of the best in the field, but none of them make more than 40k a year. On the other hand, Working developing business solution software, which requires rather basic knowledge, you can make up to 80k.
Many of the people working for the 40k might appear at first sight as slow or sloppy, but they are actually extremely efficient and can do things that none of the other "more seemingly efficient" programmers, and are always thinking of the best possible solution, rather than a quick whatever solution.
This means that to an observer, it might appear evident, but to actually know how good a worker is, you MUST analyze their work, NOT HOW THEY SEEM TO DO IT.

And here's where you seem to be "calling it as you see it". Particularly in this field which is actually very tied to classic art and at the same time the cutting edge technology, there is MUCH MORE than meets the eye.
This is not me defending that "that's not how they really are" I'm saying that as with any PR, they present a certain image that makes their work appealing (SHOCKING!).
It is actually a huge problem with some people coming into the industry (which I thougth was solved by now, but I guess not), that from the media does not make it look as a serious ocupation, so many applicants expect that "hey, game making! must be super chill!"
But unless these people have an unsurmountable, controlable and exploitable talent I assure you THEY WILL NOT BE HIRED.

Now I'm not saying bad workers dont exist (they obviously do, everywhere), but particularly in a business as competitive as this, you snooze, you lose, theres a hundred brilliant people waiting for a chance.
The thing is, that particularly when dealing with artistic production, which Videogame Development is one of the deepest forms of, "Calling it as you see it" just doesn't cut it.
 

Soak

New member
Sep 21, 2010
139
0
0
Eh, already so many posts and i'm to lazy to read them all right now. Considering, i'm also to lazy right now to write an elaborate comment. So i will write as much as this:

Uhm, yeah, it's capitalism we live in, right?! As in "those who accumulate the most capital win the game"; at least that's what many of the managers sitting in the upper positions right now probably think. The "game-industry" is now a thing, gone are the days when most developers were "top notch nerds" and could do their own thing, because no one else could do it and actually cared about it (this sounds obnoxiously nostalgic and more simple than it actually is, but whatevs). Throughout the last decades and some roller coaster riding the "game-market", people who are more interested in making money, rather than making "good games" became more and more conscious about the potential of the industry and obviously, games are now a huge part of the whole entertainment-branch. Artistic freedom, the freedom to explore and create whatever the developers wanted to is now often put under the "guidance" of big bosses who may know shit about making games, but know much about making money and when they tell their employees "jump", the little code-monkeys have to jump, if anything, they may be allowed to ask "how high, sir?".
As far as i know, many claim that this capitalism is what the USA, obviously the biggest contributor of games, is build on (considering the founders intents i kinda doubt that, but who am i to tell) and you don't want to say anything against the USA, do you?

However, looking at the recent development regarding the industry itself (high acceptance of indy-productions, kickstarting games and other "experimental" projects, increasing complaints about AAA-titles), maybe this will change again in the near future. If everything works out well for the "gaming community", if customers actually realize that they can influence the market by what they want to consume and by demanding some kind of quality in it (apart from being shiny and stuff) and maybe even if an increasing number of studios reconsider that "money" doesn't have to be the goal, but is nothing more than a currency, the course just might change "for the better".
On the other hand, why should the bigger studios stop their money-hunt when they still get what they want.

We will see.
Oh, before i forget:
As always, an amen to today's preachings and thank god for you, Jim.
 

Domoslaf

New member
Nov 10, 2009
41
0
0
Jim,

I feel like I'm supposed to start with "I know you don't read the comments, but", but of course you do read them.

I really like your show. The actual show. The bits where you talk about important, often controversial things others don't bother to talk about, don't have courage to or haven't even thought about. These tend to be great.

But don't try to be a stand-up comedian. You're piss-poor at that. I don't really get why video games becoming more mainstream led video game journalists to believe they are so mainstream now that they're are capable of doing everything. You aren't and now I'm not only talking about you. It seems like now video game reviewers feel obliged to weigh in on social issues, political issues, culture issues they really have nothing remotely interesting to say. You're great at talking about games. Stick to it.

And coming back precisely to you, be funny while talking about video games. You get video game humor. That is nothing to be ashamed about. I know poop is generally funny, but come on. Leave these things to people who've been doing it way longer than you.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Delcast said:
Therumancer said:
Again, wrong.
This is not me defending my trade, I now work in an independent studio, and we simply have to work as much as we can to release the best product we can. This is me explaining a process which often may seem unprofessional to an unexperienced observer. A process which is actually very intricate and requires a lot of systems working together that you can only really appreciate when you really see them in action together.

I have found a report in Maxim ( I suppose it's this one: "why many game developers drive ferraris" ), which is hardly what you could call an in-depth analysis or even an article at all. But it states that the managing positions -lead designers, lead artists, and sound designers etc in an ELITE AAA company, make a lot of money- no breakdown as to what senior, junior or temp positions make. Also note, that the highest paid position in game development is listed as MARKETING AND BUSINESS! (SUITS!) (almost twice as much as any other position) But NOT actually part of the hard development team -completely administrative-.
As stated these numbers are only viable in HUGE companies with IN-HOUSE teams, such as Blizzard or Ubisoft. Middle range AAA developers, who are actually under control of bigger publishing companies, such as Viseral games or even Infinity Ward don't count directly with nearly as many resources, and direct payment is much lower. They are also forced to accept to certain strict conditions from a publisher (many famous cases, such as Yager being forced by the publisher to place an unnecesary multiplayer mode into Spec-Ops, or even Viceral with the microtransaction debacle, Or the really unfortunate case of Team bondi and Rockstar), and require to fulfill the requirements of the publisher (not the other way around!).

.
If it's the correct article there should be a cartoony graphic, it starts with the suits at the top, and moves down to more modest people in the industry. Your typical code monkey averaging about 80-100k a year or something like that.

That said since your getting personal with it (association with the industry), I'm going to let it go here. I don't need to have the last word, and if we continue to fight this one out, we'll probably never wind up speaking to each other again online, and it sounds like I might enjoy speaking with you on other subjects at some point.
 

sadmac

New member
Sep 18, 2011
18
0
0
The Deadpool said:
sadmac said:
These practices only affect exchange with the consumer. Ethicality is a question of the exchange continuing to be voluntary (or euvoluntary if you would like a higher bar).
By your definition, using child laborers wouldn't fit under an ethical dillema...
Most special protections for children in this regard come from the notion that a child isn't responsible for themselves and thus cannot consent, thus precluding a (eu)volountary exchange of labor for money.

But the point here is that their income does NOT make all their actions ethical. Whether people buy or not has no bearing on that discussion.
False. If their actions are profitable, then the public approves of their actions, and the public sets the ethical standard.
 

Indecipherable

Senior Member
Mar 21, 2010
590
0
21
Jim has massively misunderstood the argument and just gone off to beat down a strawman. A brief glance over (some of) the responses here have done a good job IMO of suggesting where.
 

Doclector

New member
Aug 22, 2009
5,010
0
0
Seems a little like stating the obvious, but still, good episode.

And thanks for that dead space poop story.

I don't think I can ever have an erection again.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jun 24, 2011
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
xPixelatedx said:
I appreciate your efforts to try and bring a reasonable light to this topic, but I feel your pleas fall upon deaf ears. As the last few years have proven, (particularly with bioware, EA and Capcom), some companies butthole's are so insanely clenched around their sycophants, even superman couldn't pull them out. And that is the reason why these companies still exist and do the things they do, regardless of how bad their business practices are or how terribly they view their own fanbase. Seriously, I have never seen any other industry actually call their customers names. Objectively speaking, that should be the death of any company right there... so why isn't it?
The message needs to be to gamers, not to corporations. The reason corporations do and also get away with this shit is because gamers make excuses, like "they are in business to make money", for them.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Within the game industry, the movements of "these are bad practices" has become inextricable with the mindset of "we want this shit for free". Part of that is the subjective nature of bad practices. EA, the worst of the lot as many believe, isn't exactly enslaving children in Africa to program in slave mines while they're forced to smuggle out code in between their toes so they can feed their family. They're charging people for products, but the prices feel too much for some people. Or they're *gasp* making people sign up on some website. Or they're making games require a constant internet connection. These are not exactly crushing social issues that demand the attention of civil rights leaders. At worst, AT WORST, it means you don't get to enjoy a product due to financial reasons. I can't enjoy a Ferrari because of financial reasons, but I don't claim the car company is a price gouger that hates its customers.
 

irishda

New member
Dec 16, 2010
968
0
0
Blue Ranger said:
carnex said:
I was with Jim up until On Disc Locked Content. When will people stop with this bullshit! Location of content is not relevant! If it's good, it's good, if it's bad, it's bad be it on disc or on iterwebs! It's not like on disc stuff is made prior to the game launch and content you actually have to download later. In majority of cases both are made during the main production phase and team shifted to next project when the game is finished relegating just a bit of time towards patching up bugs later.

Murder is bad whether it happens in center of the richest town or in the poorest slums, even if we don't like to see it as such. Feeding hungry people is good thing be they out next of kin or our enemies even if we, for our personal reasons, don't see it as such. Don't attack On Disc Locked Content because the solution is not to improve the game, it's just to make you download more. You still have to pay for it, it's just that you have to download it too now. This feels like chasing a mouse around the kitchen while people get sick because food you get from suppliers is spoiled.

We, the gamers, as a group are retarded. Mob mentality at its finest, or worst if you wish. That means that people who have high soapboxes steer that ship. Don't steer it into the fucking rocks you blithering idiot! Fight the battles that are worth fighting, not some pathetic distractions!
And when will people like you stop with this bullshit of making excuses for companies locking content on the disc? I am totally with Jim on this. This is a perfect example of you bending over and making excuses for a company. Yeah, where dlc is placed DOES actually fucking matter. When I buy a game at retail, I damn well better get access to every single thing on that disc. Don't lock content on the disc that I can't access because you want to gauge more money off me. That's just fucking stupid, and I will make my complaints heard when it happens. You may be okay with companies like crapcom locking content on the disc you pruchased, but many of us are not.
That's an argument of semantics and expectations. Are you, the customer, entitled to additional content on the medium you purchased to deliver said content? Or does it just feel that way because the past methods of delivery have given you the expectation that everything on a disc should be unlocked? Let's put it this way. If you bought a game off Steam, are you entitled to all the related extras of said game that were also released the day it was launched? What's the difference between that and the extra content on the disc? If the entirety of the game was locked on the disc, I might be inclined to agree with you. But, as it is, usually it's just some mini episode or a few extra missions, neither of which are necessary to play the game.
 

Atmos Duality

New member
Mar 3, 2010
8,473
0
0
xPixelatedx said:
I appreciate your efforts to try and bring a reasonable light to this topic, but I feel your pleas fall upon deaf ears. As the last few years have proven, (particularly with bioware, EA and Capcom), some companies butthole's are so insanely clenched around their sycophants, even superman couldn't pull them out. And that is the reason why these companies still exist and do the things they do, regardless of how bad their business practices are or how terribly they view their own fanbase. Seriously, I have never seen any other industry actually call their customers names. Objectively speaking, that should be the death of any company right there... so why isn't it?
I get the feeling that the AAA Publishers are desperately trying to prevent an even bigger market backlash to pay for their rising costs. One that doesn't involve directly raising prices on the core package.

It explains a great deal of their increased emphasis on "less-for-more" (content-to-cost) DLC practices, hyper-conservative attitude towards market variety (read: If it isn't "safe", it's not getting made) and dismissive of criticism (that they didn't pay for anyway).

Can you imagine the drop in sales if they priced games for 100 bucks a pop flat out rather than introducing the rest of the cost as optional DLC? It'd make the Laurentian Abyss look like a playground slide.
(and yes, I am aware that Australia puts up with that already, look at the bigger picture; I'm talking primary markets, and not just those who they pork in the arse with arbitrage)

It may also explain why they spend extraordinary sums on marketing while paying the developer peanuts in comparison.
 

hickwarrior

a samurai... devil summoner?
Nov 7, 2007
429
0
0
Well, I've skimmed over this thread, but I think I wanted to address the 'vote with your wallet' point.

From my perspective, a game is more than just a business. A game is something you can hold dear, have memories of while playing it. I think it's something all works of art have. You associate certain experiences with books, maybe paintings or what have you.

What this means for me is kind of like this: A game, or a franchise, has a setting where stories are told. These settings can influence characters in certain ways, or make the world have a certain style to them. Something like Pokemon, Dynasty Warriors or Shin Megami Tensei. There's also gameplay to consider. All of these things create unique experiences, or as unique as possibly can be achieved.

However, the way I'm hearing and reading about how businesses and/or suits tend to handle it, is entirely the wrong way to do it. It's like the AAA games industry thinks it owns these unique properties that are guaranteed to always sell. But, videogames are 'unique', have a certain feel for people that want that kind of 'emotion'. And are willing to pay out of a place where the sun don't shine for it.

I hope this is clear enough to get my point across, cause it's kind of a hard thing to explain. The best way I can put it is heart.
 

Undeadpool

New member
Aug 17, 2009
209
0
0
I...very seriously take issue with games now having the least content for the most money in...ever. I remember paying $80 for Kirby's Superstar. Great game, but that was $80 ~15 years ago. Breath of Fire 1 & 2 were around $50 in mid-90s terms and LITERALLY half of their gameplay is grinding. LITERALLY. Hell, in 2's case maybe MORE than half. JRPGs in particular are infamous for padding their length with mandatory grinding. I understand games like Skyrim, Mass Effect, The Witcher, and hell I'll just say Alpha Protocol to a great extent. I'll admit: it's getting a little freaky. For instance: Leviathan DEFINITELY should have been in Mass Effect 3, there's NO QUESTION, especially with the amount of squad dialog, that that was a piece of content held back to bilk consumers out of money (or at best: held back to get the game out in a certain time frame). That is crappy, disingenuous, and worrisome.

Also: I've noticed a flaw of this series (a series I love, mind you) is that it tends to, somewhat ironically, marginalize downloadable games. I remember when a video brought up that Prototype 2 had sold absolute crap compared to what came before, it COMPLETELY ignored the fact that both Trials HD and Minecraft had SHATTERED records within a week of one another for download sales. I love that large companies with their AAA games are being held accountable, but I also love that I can get a game like Cthulhu Saves the World, a full-on JRPG (without all the grinding and with a few different play modes) for THREE DOLLARS on modern systems. A game that probably would've run $80 in this odd, bygone (fictional) golden age. I'm not saying we shouldn't hold companies accountable for what they do, I'm saying we NEED to let go of this notion that videogames used to be somehow more "pure." Cause they're more pure, and by that I mean egalitarian, now than they've EVER been.
 

cefm

New member
Mar 26, 2010
380
0
0
That statment skips over some pretty important ground. Game companies exist not to make money (only the Treasury gets to do that) but to make a product (games) that customers hopefully like enough to buy them in sufficient quantities and at a sufficient price that the company makes a profit. This only happens (in an ideal world) if the product is good enough to deserve the customer's money. Therefore journalists, reviewers and customers have every right to be insulted and angry when a game company produces a piece of garbage and have the gall to ask us to pay for it when someone accross the street has a much better product.