[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter >development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
programming for your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
all over to a smaller project.]
Layton also makes some other interesting points: for instance, the
insistence that titles have mass-appeal world-wide (with particular
focus on the West) instead of making games that might be popular just
in certain geo/political regions. "Look at the markets [in other
regions], they're growing, the economies are robust. There's more
disposable income. You can make a great game in Indonesia for that
market." says Layton. Again pointing to how a focus on just big AAA
games is leaving money on the table.
Anyway, it's an interesting conversation. What do you think: would the >industry be better served with AAA publishers changing focus, or do
you think they should just stick to the tent-pole games they're famous
for?
What do you think: would the
industry be better served with AAA publishers changing focus, or do
you think they should just stick to the tent-pole games they're famous
for?
Anyway, it's an interesting conversation. What do you think: would the industry be better served with AAA publishers changing focus, or do
you think they should just stick to the tent-pole games they're famous
for?
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:06:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<Big Snip>
[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter >>>development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
programming for your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
all over to a smaller project.]
Ahh but firing them all means more bonus money for the executives.
True. The biggest problem with Layton's argument is that it depends on >long-term thinking by C-level execs. It requires them to consider the
future of the company _beyond_ the immediate quarter. Too often, their >concern is only, "what will pop the stock price up a few ticks" and
not "what's good for the long-term health of the corporation?"...
especially since they're protected by too-high salaries and golden >parachutes.
Releasing huge games makes for great Wall Street fodder. >"ElectroActiUbiVisionSoft has released Call of Halocraft XXVI, which
required $400 million to develop and is one of the most anticipated
games on the market today!" sounds a lot more exciting to investors
than, "For the twentieth time this year, MicroBlizzArthesda which is
expected to easily recoup its $10 million development costs". The
former makes the stock bell go ding-ding-ding while the other is just
boring business-as-usual that barely gets noticed... even though the
latter is safer and more likely to bring in continued revenue.
Layton also makes some other interesting points: for instance, the >>>insistence that titles have mass-appeal world-wide (with particular
focus on the West) instead of making games that might be popular just
in certain geo/political regions. "Look at the markets [in other >>>regions], they're growing, the economies are robust. There's more >>>disposable income. You can make a great game in Indonesia for that >>>market." says Layton. Again pointing to how a focus on just big AAA
games is leaving money on the table.
Ahh but what is Indonesia's dollar value these days?
Look at the blue-ray/dvd markets and region coding because the product
is sold for so much less outside of NA/EU.
Presumably games would be the same, so it's a market they will never
pursue since the return will be so much less.
But I think that's the point. Stop chasing after $400 million dollar
games that have to appeal to everyone. They leave you vulnerable. If
it fails (and it happens, just look at "Concord"), that investment is
gone. Don't be afraid to make 40 ten-million dollar games in their
place, each designed for a smaller demographic. Some of them might
fail, but most probably --thanks to their tighter focus-- probably
won't.
If it's $90 a game in the west and $15 in Indonesia or wherever,
they're never going to go after that $15, since it's pocket change for a >>company like SONY.
There's three hundred million people in Indonesia, its per-capita GDP
has more than quadrupled in the past two decades (and continues to go
up). Yes, it's low compared to America, but it's not savages living in
the jungle. Why, they even have electricity nowadays! There's enough
people and enough money there that you _can_ make money from a market
like that... if you develop with a tighter focus.
Essentially we'll have AAA titles and A/B titles, but no AA, at least
for a while, until one of those A/B studios makes enough money to take
it up a notch. The next Blizzard (remember how varied their games were >>early on, and all of them good, before WoW screwed everything up by
getting them too much money.)
I think the argument is that companies that continue to rely solely on
AAA titles and not diversify are going to find it harder and harder to
retain marketshare and be profitable. They're just too expensive and
don't offer customers enough 'bang for the buck' over smaller,
Indie-led projects, and customers are going to flock to those smaller
games. The AAA studios will be left in the dirt, unable to compete
unless they start re-organizing now.
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:06:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<Big Snip>
[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter
development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
programming for your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
all over to a smaller project.]
Ahh but firing them all means more bonus money for the executives.
True. The biggest problem with Layton's argument is that it depends on
long-term thinking by C-level execs. It requires them to consider the
future of the company _beyond_ the immediate quarter. Too often, their
concern is only, "what will pop the stock price up a few ticks" and
not "what's good for the long-term health of the corporation?"...
especially since they're protected by too-high salaries and golden
parachutes.
Even without the parachutes and such, there's no loyalty to a company anymore.
The days of working your entire life in the same company are long gone,
so it's what will boost our stock value the most this year and therefore
make my stock options worth more, then I bail out and work for the competition (which also forces them to divest their shares in the old
company before the long term pain sets in.)
On 10/22/2024 3:11 AM, Xocyll wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading theThat was back when companies were loyal to their employees. Well, at
entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 07:06:53 -0400, Xocyll <Xocyll@gmx.com> wrote:
Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> looked up from reading the >>>> entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs
say:
<Big Snip>
[Shawn Layton doesn't mention this, but smaller games with shorter
development cycles would probably also alleviate the necessity for
mass layoffs after a big game completes, because rather than laying
off all those artists while the years-long pre-production and
programming for your AAA game takes place, you can just shift them
all over to a smaller project.]
Ahh but firing them all means more bonus money for the executives.
True. The biggest problem with Layton's argument is that it depends on
long-term thinking by C-level execs. It requires them to consider the
future of the company _beyond_ the immediate quarter. Too often, their
concern is only, "what will pop the stock price up a few ticks" and
not "what's good for the long-term health of the corporation?"...
especially since they're protected by too-high salaries and golden
parachutes.
Even without the parachutes and such, there's no loyalty to a company
anymore.
The days of working your entire life in the same company are long gone,
so it's what will boost our stock value the most this year and therefore
make my stock options worth more, then I bail out and work for the
competition (which also forces them to divest their shares in the old
company before the long term pain sets in.)
least a lot of them. Company paid for pension plans and retirement
benefits used to exist so employees had a _reason_ to stay. In turn >companies benefited from the ever more experienced work force.
That was back when companies were loyal to their employees. Well, at
least a lot of them. Company paid for pension plans and retirement
benefits used to exist so employees had a _reason_ to stay. In turn companies benefited from the ever more experienced work force.
Yeah the corporate raiders of the '90's put an end to that, wiping out
most of the old school companies and creating the "leaner, meaner,
what's in it for me, fuck the dead weight" type leadership.
Where the dead weight truly was dead weight originally, but became more
and more of the people who actually made what the corp sold.
They trimmed the fat, then they trimmed muscle and bone in endless downsizings and killed the company dead, but jumped ship before it died.
On 23/10/2024 09:25, Xocyll wrote:
Yeah the corporate raiders of the '90's put an end to that, wiping out
most of the old school companies and creating the "leaner, meaner,
what's in it for me, fuck the dead weight" type leadership.
Where the dead weight truly was dead weight originally, but became more
and more of the people who actually made what the corp sold.
They trimmed the fat, then they trimmed muscle and bone in endless
downsizings and killed the company dead, but jumped ship before it died.
Yep we had that, get rid of the office manager and let the engineers do
all those little jobs themselves. After constantly running out of
printer paper a graduate was delegated to look after it.
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the porn spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 23/10/2024 09:25, Xocyll wrote:
Yeah the corporate raiders of the '90's put an end to that, wiping out
most of the old school companies and creating the "leaner, meaner,
what's in it for me, fuck the dead weight" type leadership.
Where the dead weight truly was dead weight originally, but became more
and more of the people who actually made what the corp sold.
They trimmed the fat, then they trimmed muscle and bone in endless
downsizings and killed the company dead, but jumped ship before it died.
Yep we had that, get rid of the office manager and let the engineers do
all those little jobs themselves. After constantly running out of
printer paper a graduate was delegated to look after it.
Why not just get an unpaid intern?
"Your job is to change the paper in the printers and such, no money but
you get valuable experience you can put on your resume to get you a real
job next year. Oh and do you have a younger sibling who'd like your
unpaid job next year?"
Yep we had that, get rid of the office manager and let the engineers doWhy not just get an unpaid intern?
all those little jobs themselves. After constantly running out of
printer paper a graduate was delegated to look after it.
"Your job is to change the paper in the printers and such, no money but
you get valuable experience you can put on your resume to get you a real
job next year. Oh and do you have a younger sibling who'd like your
unpaid job next year?"
On 10/24/2024 8:04 PM, Xocyll wrote:
JAB <noway@nochance.com> looked up from reading the entrails of the pornProspective interns don't accept those kinds of positions anymore.
spammer to utter "The Augury is good, the signs say:
On 23/10/2024 09:25, Xocyll wrote:
Yeah the corporate raiders of the '90's put an end to that, wiping out >>>> most of the old school companies and creating the "leaner, meaner,Yep we had that, get rid of the office manager and let the engineers do
what's in it for me, fuck the dead weight" type leadership.
Where the dead weight truly was dead weight originally, but became more >>>> and more of the people who actually made what the corp sold.
They trimmed the fat, then they trimmed muscle and bone in endless
downsizings and killed the company dead, but jumped ship before it died. >>>
all those little jobs themselves. After constantly running out of
printer paper a graduate was delegated to look after it.
Why not just get an unpaid intern?
"Your job is to change the paper in the printers and such, no money but
you get valuable experience you can put on your resume to get you a real
job next year. Oh and do you have a younger sibling who'd like your
unpaid job next year?"
These days the only people who intern are those who have already mapped
out their careers for the next 20 years and are taking internships in
the industry they are getting advanced degrees for. They are there for
the hands on experience in the field and the bonus credits to get an
over 4.0 GPA.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 483 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 158:25:16 |
| Calls: | 9,594 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 13,676 |
| Messages: | 6,149,133 |
| Posted today: | 4 |