ROFL, so now it's not just pirates and second hand markets, they just label anyone not under their thumb as industry killers? 
It's like watching kids fight.
It's like watching kids fight.
Nintendo Praises Independents, Devalues "Garage Developers"
- Thread starter Tom Goldman
- Start date
Ignoring the obvious points about shovelware on the wii and rehashing old franchises, i think Fils-Aime may have a point. Look at it like this:
Gold is valuable because it's hard to come by. Now, imagine if gold was as easy to come by as copper. It was used in everything and you could get it anywhere. The value of gold will dramatically depreciate and it'll become just as worthless as copper.
If someone is able to make something for high sales (the value) with something extremely simplistic and cheap (the copper) then it makes sense to do so instead of spending big $$$ establishing well-known franchises and creating bombastic high profile titles. (the gold) Another way to look at it is undercutting the competition. Not because the product is better than something that has huge financial backing, but because the money in to money out ratio is so significant due to the fact there's barely any money in in the first place, and at the end of the day, it's a limited resource - you'll keep depreciating something in value until it's all that's being made. This almost feels similar to when Zynga said something along the lines of traditional gaming going the way of the dodo and social gaming taking over, because those kinds of games are stupidly cheap and easy to make and maintain, and yet you still see impressive sales figures. Even more so when you consider how little monetary investment really needs to go into it. It's not like the 6 million dollar project GTA4 was, or however much that cost to make.
Gold is valuable because it's hard to come by. Now, imagine if gold was as easy to come by as copper. It was used in everything and you could get it anywhere. The value of gold will dramatically depreciate and it'll become just as worthless as copper.
If someone is able to make something for high sales (the value) with something extremely simplistic and cheap (the copper) then it makes sense to do so instead of spending big $$$ establishing well-known franchises and creating bombastic high profile titles. (the gold) Another way to look at it is undercutting the competition. Not because the product is better than something that has huge financial backing, but because the money in to money out ratio is so significant due to the fact there's barely any money in in the first place, and at the end of the day, it's a limited resource - you'll keep depreciating something in value until it's all that's being made. This almost feels similar to when Zynga said something along the lines of traditional gaming going the way of the dodo and social gaming taking over, because those kinds of games are stupidly cheap and easy to make and maintain, and yet you still see impressive sales figures. Even more so when you consider how little monetary investment really needs to go into it. It's not like the 6 million dollar project GTA4 was, or however much that cost to make.
He problem is he's assuming that low-budget and low-quality go hand in hand. He's not even open to the idea of something like Minecraft, where the main focus is the gameplay and player engagement rather than graphics, franchises, or convoluted narration. It is truly disheartening to see someone so high in the games industry taking such a large dump on the kinds of artists and developers that brought games and computers to life in the first place--back when the only place to make code was your garage, and the only place to learn more was other hobbiests.
It might be cute to see the odd one or two developers like Mojang and Team Meat make something unanimously good on a gameplay level, but what happens when that's all we get? This is the idea behind Nintendo's statement; you water something down enough and eventually there'll be nothing left to water down, because financially, it would make no sense to spend ridiculous amounts of money creating something that can be made for a tenth of the cost, or less, and still see the same or similar amount of sales figures. I know we'll still have our big titles and i'm taking it to the extreme, but whenever public statements are made you always have to look as far ahead to the future as you can, and Nintendo are saying that the entropy effect garage developers have on the industry is what's detrimental - say goodbye to big investments when investors know they can see a big return for a tiny cost, and then some.Lilani said:
This is another important point. People can whine about overuse of mascots, but you know what? The entertainment industry just wouldn't work without mascots or well-recognised and loved IPs. What about Mickey Mouse and all the Walt Disney characters? They're as much a mascot as Mario and friends, and yet everyone loves them. How about Harry Potter? Aragorn and company? Luke Skywalker? Dare i say, Edward Cullen and what's-her-face from Twilight?Anoni Mus said:
People love mascots. They're recognisable and they sell. It helps establish a franchise and takes away this ocean of forgettable characters. As much as i loved Vanquish, Sam Gideon barely made an impression on me, for example. Nintendo should be applauded for creating such recognisable and much loved mascots that continue to be popular even today, and i think other players in the industry would do well to learn from them. Hell, even the "Angry Birds" birds on the iPad and iPhone have even begun to become mascots unto themselves, almost like a herald for smartphone app gaming. And look how successful that little product was.
Yes, scientifically it may be valuable, but i'm talking monetarily - how much money, time and manpower it takes to obtain. Gold is valuable purely because it's much harder to come by.James Raynor said:
Edit: I'm aware of the scientific value of gold in the use of electronics and such, but i do mean *more* valuable, in that it's used for trivial things like jewellery.
This kind of opinion just seems so short-sighted. I know that it's been nearly 30 years since these companies got started, but Donkey Kong, Popeye, Mr. Game and Watch, and the like... Those were all games that these guys put together as start-ups themselves.
Now, just a few decades later, Nintendo has now decided that games should be left to "the professionals," because obviously, they know best. After all, whenever I think of the best games in the industry, I think of Nintendo... Oh, wait.
These "elitist" ideas are what's really hurting the industry. Great ideas and innovative concepts can come from anywhere, regardless of the pedigree or what the "studio" looks like. It may be a AAA developer, or it may be just a guy working on it when he gets the chance. The quality of the game is what matters, not whether the guy is sipping from a silver spoon.
Unfortunately, these kinds of comments are simply the tip of an iceberg, and it's surprising to realize that many top developers feel that they "know what is best" for the industry.
Now, just a few decades later, Nintendo has now decided that games should be left to "the professionals," because obviously, they know best. After all, whenever I think of the best games in the industry, I think of Nintendo... Oh, wait.
These "elitist" ideas are what's really hurting the industry. Great ideas and innovative concepts can come from anywhere, regardless of the pedigree or what the "studio" looks like. It may be a AAA developer, or it may be just a guy working on it when he gets the chance. The quality of the game is what matters, not whether the guy is sipping from a silver spoon.
Unfortunately, these kinds of comments are simply the tip of an iceberg, and it's surprising to realize that many top developers feel that they "know what is best" for the industry.
I think all of the systems are just as quilty of the shovelwhere, whether it be a ton of kiddy games like nintendo or a ton of sub-par shooters like Xbox and PS3. And if your going to accuse nintendo of rehashing their titles then you can also accuse the others of doing it as it seems the yearly halo and COD also come without fail.
Yeah, hard to take Nintendo seriously when they insult shovelware. The underlying idea that hobby game developers hurt the industry is a little more reasonable, but still wrong. You generally know when a game is done by a hobbyist, and can make your decision accordingly. If you are looking that deep for games, then you are probably well enough informed to know what you're looking for. If its terrible, you shouldn't be anymore surprised then a gold panner realizing that he is mostly getting dirt. Sometimes, you find some gold though. The trials and tribulations of being too small time to even call yourself indie will produce a lot of trash that won't hurt anyone, and a few rare and precious gems. That's a good thing. That's a working free market injecting fresh ideas into the industry. Remember, most successes rise so high because they are standing on a mountain of failures.
Gralian said:
Items with practical applications will always be worth something, so it's a bad example. Entertainment will always be a commodity and unlike gold is not made valueless when there is mass quantities of it.
always if you need a deep honest sophomoric laugh, TNtF is your fix. Damn i was in tears.
But yeah honestly with the various collections of minigames that plague Wii retail software shelves, this is a slap in the face for aspiring developers.
OH but how else are they going to fill the wii bargain bin siting outside the car wash?Kevlar Eater said:
Alright then, if you're going to nitpick, what about gems or precious rocks? I'm not a geologist, but i'm sure most of them don't have any practical applications beyond decorative purposes, and yet some rocks or gems or what have are more 'precious' than others, simply because they're harder to come by.James Raynor said:
I'm not saying entertainment will be valueless. But that the quality of the entertainment being produced will decline as the value of high budget and high production consumer entertainment diminishes. Why do we see so many American sitcoms that are fairly cheap to make as opposed to high budget fantasy or sci-fi epics on the TV? It's for that very reason; the rating difference won't vary greatly enough to justify spending that extra investment on creating something high-value as opposed to something easier to make or produce.
The point is not that "this has more objective value than this", but the value placed on whether something high budget should be made or not. It's a 'value judgement' being made on the part of the investor, as he only cares about seeing big returns.
If they're referring to all those crappy flash games like the all the variations of "Escape the Room" than I agree completely.
Garage developers: Kyle Gabler, Ron Carmel.
Indie developer: 2d Boy (who consists of Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel and no-one else).
Indie developer: 2d Boy (who consists of Kyle Gabler and Ron Carmel and no-one else).