GreatBritishProducer

Red vs. Blue vs. GreatBritishProducer

Yes, Red vs. Blue is an American production but even as a stalwart Brit I do admire their execution. If you want more details then try the links.

Red vs. Blue is situated in the Halo universe. An understanding of the Universe can help but is not essential to understanding the commentary portrayed in their dialogue. The films are classed in the field of Machinima and are becoming available on the Xbox360. The wikipedia link will provide an extensive summary of this and Machinima.

Red vs. Blue is certain to become a milestone in social history. Make a conscious effort to view the 'Full Circle' download on Xbox Marketplace; it is classic Red vs. Blue humour.

Game Matters Response

I'm not getting the time I want to be as active on the blog, but I still find time to browse forums and occasionally post; here is my latest in respone to Scott Miller on downloadable content and pre-owned games:

I don't know how US law stacks up, but this is a decent article for the European perspective.

I'm a developer and a gamer; my opinion is that resale should stay. I'm afraid your comments sound like the familar script, Scott. Its a script that doesn't quite stand up to scrutiny.

Take the pricepoint issue: Xbox360 games sell at £49.99 ... thats $92 dollars at current exchange rates. Consider than on average Xbox360 games are being developed for £5 million to £10 million; now consider that key titles for Sega Dreamcast, Playstation 2 and Xbox were developed for between £2 million and £8 million but sold at £35.99. How can the industry justify costing £15.00 more for a 360 game created with the same team size and in the same development time? Something is awry.

What about the book anology? Well, books are a fixed format ... paper and ink. Videogames however have no such plateu in sight. The five year console cycle is what hurts the industry. The five year cycle is what stunts creativity as we attempt to grasp the technology and what it can offer; and when we do, it moves. Game Design has failed to mature becuase of the agressive attitude toward new hardware that a consumer neither demands or needs. While PC's delivered beautifully realised environments, the PS2, with its inferior graphics laid waste to the PC market. The PS2 was also one of the most innovative carriers of content.

Lost revenue: Look at the facts of the story and its the publishers who rallied the cry. Its their bottom line that is hurt. Developers already suffer at the hands of the publisher. The resell market is a scapegoat for a lack of strategic planning and greed. The publisher continues to establish ridiculous recoupment clauses in contract which sees them turn profit long before the developer. The publisher has consistently fails to do its homework and invests in market saturation, why? Greed. They want a slice and will invest in inferior product which fails to establish an IP. An IP they own, why? Greed. The publishers consent to release products in two key windows > November through December and March through to May. Products get lost; marketing spend gets contralised and tens of games fail to make a profit. What digital distribution allows is a developer to become a quasi publisher. You also lose brand presence with Digital Distribution is among one of the highest consumers of video games ... parents.

And to messsage to gamers that they are the 'real' losers is wh nothing more than patronising. Consumers are aware; they want quality product at a reasonable price. They want flexibility at retail; hence the download market co-existing with the retail market and hence the demand for pre-owned games.
As developers, our core responsibility is to deliver an experience a consumer would not want to relinquish ; like the books you move house with, the films you re-buy on DVD. We clearly need to make better games more consistently than we are now.

The Bill of wrong's

Watching 'The Bill' on June 7^th, 2006, I was appalled to hear characters accusingly reference video games for the behaviour of a teenager who shot his friend with his friends, dad's gun.

From memory, the video game reference was spoken by a Police Officer and the boy who was shot. The context in which the reference was used was suggestive of his current behaviour – he had earlier shot his friend and presently he was holding a Police Officer hostage. The fictional game was called 'The Executioner'.

I'm not sure what I'm more surprised by; The Bill for being irresponsible for perpetuating what is no more than scaremongering of a new medium or OFCOM for not recognising this would offend those people who work in the video game business and highlight mere ignorance for the medium of video games. 

The bill is a show that reaches over 4 million viewers on a regular basis. There was no evidence in the episode of a balanced view of video games. Video games were represented as the trigger on the gun. The references were almost subliminal, suggestive, so placed within a sentence to be disguised by the surrounding words but clearly structured their to affect the populous. 

Look at the title of the game. As a gamer, I would expect a game with this title to be an 18 certificate. At no point in the storyline did any character attempt a counter argument.

It boils down to one fact; the game product continue to be targeted and blamed for some modern social ills. This is not unique, the gun or the knife is also blamed but there is minimal discussion on the distribution and control of these products. The complexity with games is that they are referenced as a catalyst for use of weapons and violence. This reference is aimed at game creators and not at publishers, distributors, retailers or guardians.

- Why is this not clear?
- Why is this obvious to industry insiders and no-one else?
- What is ELSPA and IGDA really doing about it?

For all the press GTA can receive for its negative traits I see very little but reactive comments from the bodies that are supposed to support us.

Industry Warning

Occasionally, I bookmark a page, forget about it and by the time I link on it I discover its in the past. Non-the-less, with the current climate of news lacking inspiration, this blog entry lit the bulb.

The fact is, the enquirer does not know what its talking about, neither to the people commenting on the blog. Davidicus on the one hand, appears informed at some level.

The fact is, the industry in doing very well. The problem lies with the business model between publisher and developer; the relationship between publisher and  developer and the professionalism of development. When referring to professionalism, I'm basing the reference on 7 years experience within a publisher and within a development house.

The Business Model
Dated and inflexible. It can take between 3 and 9 months to court publishers; during this time a project is often self funded. When a contract is signed, it is commonly signed as a prototype only. This is regularly contracted at 6 months. Based on the demands and dependent on professionalism, this code produced is often a hack that will be re-written. This is something the publisher is unaware of. After six months of a publishers support, a project can be rejected. Lesser developers perceive his as an issue with the game concept and seek to re-develop ... not he most intelligent course of action!

The Relationship
It becomes clear that from the outset, based on the previous model, but not exclusive, the relationship is flawed. The developer promises delivery at the expense of quality, cost or time; the magic development triangle. What point chosen depends on the developers demands or more accurately, confidence. The developer will hide methods, protecting what is actually required to make the game. The publisher commonly remains ignorant to the reality, often because they are over committed to multiple projects. The process is often based on subversion and coercion,

Development Professionalism
Speaking of British developers, they lack professional aptitude on the whole, compared to American counterparts. In evidence is its lack of management and strategic planning. For a nation who combated several wars based on intelligence and foresight, this knowledge has failed to extend into business. Its been fashionable almost for several British developers to be absorbed by American publishers. Is this a co-incidence?

Clearly the industry is not about to crash, but internally there is crisis at various levels. Developers need to look beyond games to elevate their skill set across all areas. Developers need to reflect on the development model and force change. Developers need to recognise what they have and consider diversity in their own business model. Developers must expose development to publishers. Publishers ... they are in the envious position of of one who does not need to act unless there is no option. However, publishers must assess their resources to support development. Publishers should communicate to develop a level on standardisation for assessing and accepting products pitched by developers. Publishers need to recognise in-house marketing is no longer efficient or viable to capture a modern consumer.   

It has been six months since the original post; there is no sign of a crash, but a change is going to com; when I'd argue its up to the developers.

E3 ... whats that? Err...

I'm tired of hearing everyone state how bad E3 was for Sony and how great it was for Microsoft; not to mention the alchemy of Nintendo. We all like an underdog, I'd go as far as to say its a very British trait ... and Nintendo still hold that title, bless you all.

But does your opinion really matter? Ask 'John Gamer' about E3 and they will reply, 'E3, What's that?'. This means Sony's reputation is still in tact where it matters ... on the high street, amongst the common man.

If you're opinion, yes you, industry people, really mattered, Sega would still be making consoles, VR would be in every home and the meagre 2D televisual format would be consigned to history. The N64 controller would dominate retail shelves and be adopted by all hardware manufacurers. All games would be unique, never derivative (which would kill the industry) - sequels would be banished. Sony would never be a console developer. Microsoft would go back under it mountainous rock.

You see, industry opinion is insular and impresses little on mass culture. Mass culture influences the industry more than the other way around. Ask yourself why you are making what you are and ponder on where the decision was really made. It wasn't in a boardroom, it wasn't in an office, it wasn't in pub or in a flash of inspiration. The decision was made by the demands of the market, a market which is mostly blind to us and what we say. Kubrick's image is fitting.