[quote]Originally posted by Konrad:
[b]Ouch... Well I hope I'm a little different than that...
I do see where you are comming from, just remember because those people are there you can devote all your time and energy to the art and not have to worry about money as often (unless they start messing with your work, that is a problem).
We're not all bad, I swear [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[upon a little refection I've chose to add the following]
We're not all bad, just most of us, I swear. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 03-20-2002).][/b][/quote]
Nothing personal, of course. Whoever makes a broad generalization is bound to be partially wrong.
You're absolutely right about the fact that having someone who specializes in money issues allows the artist to do art. If that were all they did we’d be in good shape. Instead, MBA’s are often given complete control of which projects will be produced. Since their main concern seems to be mitigating risk, and because the ones I’m talking about don’t have the background or aptitude to productively evaluate complex artistic content, often times the end result is that rather mundane, low risk, projects are chosen for production, instead of projects that have higher artistic value and greater risk because they push the envelope – or projects are not chosen simply because they are not understood by MBA’s who don’t have the background to ‘get it’.
This may be good for business in the short term, but it stifles the evolution of art. In the long term the marketplace becomes bored. Buying goes down. This results in more aggressive marketing, which only works on the short term. In the long term the market place becomes jaded with aggressive marketing.
In my opinion the end result is that marketing is forced to aggressively target young people, because the previous generations have become too jaded to be effectively marked. In other words, they don’t believe marketers anymore, and refuse to buy, sometimes just out of principle.
In my opinion it would be better to take a little more risk, allow the art to evolve, market quality projects, and build a marketplace that spans several generations of happy, expectant buyers.
There are exceptions. I’ve run across a few film producers who are also very knowledgeable about film production. Artists who get to work with them are fortunate. I can also think of a few artists who are great at handling their own business. But I think these people are rare, and the system needs to account for the fact that business people often shouldn’t be allowed to make artistic decisions because they simply don’t have the background. Vice versa is true as well. There needs to be a fusion – a fluid decision-making process that takes into account both the evolution of the art and sound business practices.
In order for this to happen there needs to be mutual respect between business concerns and artistic concerns. MBA’s should do what they do best. Artists (content providers) should do what they do best. Right now there is an imbalance. This is true for television, features films, book publishing, and interactive entertainment. Too much is at stake for society to focus only on the extreme maximization of profits while relegating ‘art’ to ‘commodity’.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 03-20-2002).]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
Case in point: [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Sorcerer's[/b] Stone[/i]. Renamed from the original [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Philosopher's[/b] Stone[/i] because the marketing people in the US felt that their name would have more impact and thus greater sales, despite the original title (and story) being based on and using a real-life alchemical legend by the author: the Philosopher's Stone.
The best option would be to have an artist an a money person working together at the top. Then they could help each other see the risks and benefits and both sides of the problem.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Randy, I've just printed out your diatribe(sp?) and I'm going to hang it on the wall of my office. Often time there is a kernel of truth to everthing said. What you said was an entire ear of corn!
[quote]Originally posted by Freejack:
[b]Randy, I've just printed out your diatribe(sp?) and I'm going to hang it on the wall of my office. Often time there is a kernel of truth to everthing said. What you said was an entire ear of corn!
Jake[/b][/quote]
Thanks for the kind words.
I am in no way responsible for the squad of MBA's with DSMO-laced soakers who show up at your office door.
(See E3 Star Fury thread) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[quote]Originally posted by Randy:
[b]
But other than that they seem really swell.
[/b][/quote]
GUUUYS THE MARKETING WEASALS GOT TO RANDY!!! AAAAHHH!
okay cutting out the warleaderesq part.
Exactly the problem Randy, but I would argue that in many fields that by not understanding the "heart" of the matter they dont truly understand buisness. The modern MBA in companies is focused on value in the short term. Look at all the CEO's who raise the short term perfromance of the company by reducing overhead, and selling off assests and then claim its revenue? thats suicide for a company in the long run is what it is.
I dont think that all MBA's are bad, but to often they manage to ignore the advice of the proffesionals in the field who understand the customers and the product.
And never let an MBA try to get involved with IT, there are things that Windows machines were never ment to do and control machines that make pumps for oil rigs and nuclear reactors is one of them.
[This message has been edited by Tyvar (edited 03-20-2002).]
The problem with MBAs is exactly the problem both Ford and GM have had recently. There were not enough people in the company that were passionate about cars. Sure the engineers and the like were, but not management. Both companies are starting to hire car nuts at the higher levels. In my mind an MBA is useless in a managment position unless they have a passion for the product or service they sell.
[quote]Originally posted by Tyvar:
[b]And never let an MBA try to get involved with IT, there are things that Windows machines were never ment to do and control machines that make pumps for oil rigs and nuclear reactors is one of them.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, whatever happened to the term "Mission Critical anyway?!?!?! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
Biggles<font color=#AAFFAA>The Man Without a Face</font>
An MBA can't properly direct a company or part of a company if they don't understand it.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[quote]Originally posted by Biggles:
[b]Case in point: [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Sorcerer's[/b] Stone[/i]. Renamed from the original [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Philosopher's[/b] Stone[/i] because the marketing people in the US felt that their name would have more impact and thus greater sales, despite the original title (and story) being based on and using a real-life alchemical legend by the author: the Philosopher's Stone.
The best option would be to have an artist an a money person working together at the top. Then they could help each other see the risks and benefits and both sides of the problem.
[/B][/quote]
Ahh, so that's what it was. I almost considered buying an HP toy collectible because I thought it could be valuable hence the misspelled name. Glad I didn't.
But the whole "let's change the name because it sounds better" thing is just outragous when it comes to the artist's rights.
Unfortunately, what often happens with management at a publicly traded company is that the officers and upper level management have to answer to the stockholder, so they have to show growth (profit) from quarter to quarter.
Also unfortunately, most stockholders are notoriously fickle when it comes to who they're going to back. When you're competing for people to spend their money on you, then you have to show that you can do things more efficeintly (read cheaply or profitably) than the other guy. There are two ways to be profitable: Increase revenue or decrease cost. It takes creativity and a willingness to take calculated risks to increase revenue. It's no sweat to cut costs.
When you think of the climate that a CEO, CFO or other company officer lives under, then it's a no-brainer. Each of them knows going into the job that they're going to get fired, it's just a matter of when. They're terrified to take risks, because if they screw it up, then the axe falls that much faster. If they cut costs, then they show a profit. Besides, why should they worry if the company will eventually self destruct. The odds are that they'll be gone and at another company when that happens, then the current serving CEO takes the blame.
It is my belief that artistic creativity, whether music, dramatic arts (including movies), games, etc. is best left to the smaller, private companies. The realities of financing, however, lead to a different conclusion. A movie takes $70+ million for a moderate budget, plays take $10+ million to produce and games (I'm just guessing, but correct me if I'm wrong) about $15 +- million to produce and market. An individual company who wants to be competative has to seek outside funding. When they do that, the product is no longer their own, but is the responsibility of the backer. And nobody wants to back a dog, so you hire a GM to make sure that it's done under budget, then you have to hire someone to handle marketing.... before you know it, you have a big company, and to pay all those salaries, you have to go public or go bankrupt. Oops, now that you're public, you have stockholders you have to answer to....
Okay, I've forgotten my point, but there was one. I'll shut up now.
[quote]Originally posted by Randy:
[b]
Nothing personal, of course. Whoever makes a broad generalization is bound to be partially wrong.
You're absolutely right about the fact that having someone who specializes in money issues allows the artist to do art. If that were all they did we’d be in good shape. Instead, MBA’s are often given complete control of which projects will be produced. Since their main concern seems to be mitigating risk, and because the ones I’m talking about don’t have the background or aptitude to productively evaluate complex artistic content, often times the end result is that rather mundane, low risk, projects are chosen for production, instead of projects that have higher artistic value and greater risk because they push the envelope – or projects are not chosen simply because they are not understood by MBA’s who don’t have the background to ‘get it’.
This may be good for business in the short term, but it stifles the evolution of art. In the long term the marketplace becomes bored. Buying goes down. This results in more aggressive marketing, which only works on the short term. In the long term the market place becomes jaded with aggressive marketing.
In my opinion the end result is that marketing is forced to aggressively target young people, because the previous generations have become too jaded to be effectively marked. In other words, they don’t believe marketers anymore, and refuse to buy, sometimes just out of principle.
In my opinion it would be better to take a little more risk, allow the art to evolve, market quality projects, and build a marketplace that spans several generations of happy, expectant buyers.
There are exceptions. I’ve run across a few film producers who are also very knowledgeable about film production. Artists who get to work with them are fortunate. I can also think of a few artists who are great at handling their own business. But I think these people are rare, and the system needs to account for the fact that business people often shouldn’t be allowed to make artistic decisions because they simply don’t have the background. Vice versa is true as well. There needs to be a fusion – a fluid decision-making process that takes into account both the evolution of the art and sound business practices.
In order for this to happen there needs to be mutual respect between business concerns and artistic concerns. MBA’s should do what they do best. Artists (content providers) should do what they do best. Right now there is an imbalance. This is true for television, features films, book publishing, and interactive entertainment. Too much is at stake for society to focus only on the extreme maximization of profits while relegating ‘art’ to ‘commodity’.
[/b][/quote]
I must agree with my esteemed colleague, and I would like to share a few addendums to his comments.
When I was working on selling the concept of ITF around to other publishers and “partner-developers,” I had to do market research, and allot of it involved analysis of the stratification of the market among the various genre types (if you followed that sentence, the rest will be cake).
Here’s how the game market looks. Core gamers are only 30% of the market, but they make up 70%+ of the annual sales revenue for games, buying 12-18 titles/year. Keep in mind that these are unique titles (i.e. they don’t go buying 2-3 copies of the same game). Where it gets hard is with the “casual gamers.” These folks comprise 70% of the market, but only make up around 30% of the dollar revenue, HOWEVER it is the sales in this group that really makes or breaks a game success-wise.
While certain niche games sell very well (such as Diablo, the Doom/Quake series, Sim”Whatever”), these are well-established, quality franchises with broadband recognition within and without the core gaming community.
Now, let’s take a game like, oh, say, FreeSpace. This immediately has two things working against it:
1. Lack of Broadband Recognition: The franchise is new, and when you drop that baby in Wal-Mart, mom and dad aren’t going to know it from Dig-Dug. If it’s sitting next to “Star Wars: X-wing Collector’s Edition,” X-wing will outsell it, because Mom and Dad know that little Timmy LOVES Star Wars, and will assume the game is good based on that alone (even though the engine is 3 or 4 generations outdated, and gets frustrating as hell after mission 4).
2. Budget. Because it isn’t recognized, even if the developer has a decent track record, marketing money won’t follow that product. Building a new brand is an expensive proposition, and the marketing of that product can quickly outpace the game’s production costs. A publisher literally has to “pay” for premium locations at retail outlets, much as they do for ads.
So, this actually explains the quick and dirty “Pokemon”, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, “Survivor”, “Deer Hunter”, etc. titles: they’re quick to make, cheap to market, and carry immediate brand recognition with them to the rack at the local thrift-store. Why do you think that, in 2000 alone, [b]eight[/b] different Star Trek games came out?
Let me ask this: Which do you expect to sell better: “Jedi Knight II,” or “No One Lives Forever 2”? Pretty much a no brainer, right? Both are going to cost about the same to make.
It’s my belief that what many of the publishers are fighting with now is maintaining the balance of keeping the High-maintenance/high expectations of the core gamer balanced with the steady income of the mainstream market.
My opinion is that to succeed and survive, a studio has to do both. You need the Q&D income to finance the Art. It’s like having a power split in Washington between the Democrats and Republicans. Tilt to far to either side, and the country will go to hell in a hand basket.
The problem is that right now the skew is going way to far to one side at a few of these companies.
-Rick
PS: For the record: If ITF was dropped into aisle displays at Wall-Mart, and had ads that appeared in Entertainment Weekly, Sports Illustrated, TV Guide, and TIME magazine, our numbers forcase (conservatively) that we could have easily met, and most likely exceeded, 1M sell-thorough units worldwide. That assumes that less than 5% of the B5 fans would buy the game, and less than 1% of the mass casual market bought it. Being realistic about it, that probably would have added ~$10M to the publisher’s post-expense bottom line in the year published.
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
There are a lot of fundamental economic problems that can be traced to the sudden boom in the American stock markets. People have gotten in that have no business being there.
Here is how I see it:
1: The economy was experiencing a moderate upswing coming out of the #1 Bush admin and going into the Clinton admin.
2: The fed (we can debate if it was under pressure from Clinton or not) didn't raise interest rates to keep the expansion happening at a more reasonable rate and they also continued to print money.
3: With a really low interest rate people ran out to get loans and had huge sums of money they had to throw at something/anything.
4: There was a sudden flood of crap Internet ventures and advertising.
5: The economy BOOMED and went out of control on loaned money, people were throwing away their money on "high tech" IPO's. Since everyone was investing in mutual funds the houses were using short term boom strategies to attract more customers.
6: Finally! The fed raised the rates, siting "irrational exuberance."
7: Japan and South America's economy take hits because of bad banking and corruption
8: Everyone realized it's been a bubble, the companies that they've invested in are worth nothing and produce nothing.
9: BUST!
10: People run from the market or dive into emotionally comforting stocks like LMT or Krispy Kreme.
11: Money at theses "high tech" companies evaporates, they've been paying salaries with investor money because none of them have seen a profit yet:
12: They fold, unemployment goes up.
13: Unfortunately people who are short term thinkers and boom/bust cycle short term gamblers like the knave was talking about are in positions of power at the surviving companies. The market still has a bunch of short-term thinkers in it.
So thanks to pressure from someone in the Government, or someone at the fed wanting to reside over a booming economy so they could go down in history and write their book about being the greatest economist ever, perhaps Greenspan, perhaps all of them, they ****ed all of us over in the long term.
(There is plenty more detail, but I could write my Doctoral Thesis on this idea.)
It is all a result of the (Generalized) Baby Boomers mentality when they were growing up that “we could die tomorrow when the bombs start falling so live today” and the (Generalized) Generation Xers “**** everyone else it all about Me Me Me” attitude.
Ask yourself are you contributing to the problem of short term thinking: Have you ever been on the highway in a crawling traffic jam in the right lane and cut onto and raced down an onramp to get ahead of ten or so cars… only to slow everyone else behind you even more because of the slowing nature of your merging. I see it all the time in DC, if you do it your part of this short term thinking problem.
Lately I’ve been trying to break away from the vacuum of being a self centered asshole, I try and be more patient and for the past few months I’ve tried to go out of my way to do something for another person every few hours even if it’s small.
Comments
[b]Ouch... Well I hope I'm a little different than that...
I do see where you are comming from, just remember because those people are there you can devote all your time and energy to the art and not have to worry about money as often (unless they start messing with your work, that is a problem).
We're not all bad, I swear [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[upon a little refection I've chose to add the following]
We're not all bad, just most of us, I swear. [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/smile.gif[/img]
[This message has been edited by Konrad (edited 03-20-2002).][/b][/quote]
Nothing personal, of course. Whoever makes a broad generalization is bound to be partially wrong.
You're absolutely right about the fact that having someone who specializes in money issues allows the artist to do art. If that were all they did we’d be in good shape. Instead, MBA’s are often given complete control of which projects will be produced. Since their main concern seems to be mitigating risk, and because the ones I’m talking about don’t have the background or aptitude to productively evaluate complex artistic content, often times the end result is that rather mundane, low risk, projects are chosen for production, instead of projects that have higher artistic value and greater risk because they push the envelope – or projects are not chosen simply because they are not understood by MBA’s who don’t have the background to ‘get it’.
This may be good for business in the short term, but it stifles the evolution of art. In the long term the marketplace becomes bored. Buying goes down. This results in more aggressive marketing, which only works on the short term. In the long term the market place becomes jaded with aggressive marketing.
In my opinion the end result is that marketing is forced to aggressively target young people, because the previous generations have become too jaded to be effectively marked. In other words, they don’t believe marketers anymore, and refuse to buy, sometimes just out of principle.
In my opinion it would be better to take a little more risk, allow the art to evolve, market quality projects, and build a marketplace that spans several generations of happy, expectant buyers.
There are exceptions. I’ve run across a few film producers who are also very knowledgeable about film production. Artists who get to work with them are fortunate. I can also think of a few artists who are great at handling their own business. But I think these people are rare, and the system needs to account for the fact that business people often shouldn’t be allowed to make artistic decisions because they simply don’t have the background. Vice versa is true as well. There needs to be a fusion – a fluid decision-making process that takes into account both the evolution of the art and sound business practices.
In order for this to happen there needs to be mutual respect between business concerns and artistic concerns. MBA’s should do what they do best. Artists (content providers) should do what they do best. Right now there is an imbalance. This is true for television, features films, book publishing, and interactive entertainment. Too much is at stake for society to focus only on the extreme maximization of profits while relegating ‘art’ to ‘commodity’.
[This message has been edited by Randy (edited 03-20-2002).]
The best option would be to have an artist an a money person working together at the top. Then they could help each other see the risks and benefits and both sides of the problem.
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
Jake
[b]Randy, I've just printed out your diatribe(sp?) and I'm going to hang it on the wall of my office. Often time there is a kernel of truth to everthing said. What you said was an entire ear of corn!
Jake[/b][/quote]
Thanks for the kind words.
I am in no way responsible for the squad of MBA's with DSMO-laced soakers who show up at your office door.
(See E3 Star Fury thread) [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/wink.gif[/img]
[b]
But other than that they seem really swell.
[/b][/quote]
GUUUYS THE MARKETING WEASALS GOT TO RANDY!!! AAAAHHH!
okay cutting out the warleaderesq part.
Exactly the problem Randy, but I would argue that in many fields that by not understanding the "heart" of the matter they dont truly understand buisness. The modern MBA in companies is focused on value in the short term. Look at all the CEO's who raise the short term perfromance of the company by reducing overhead, and selling off assests and then claim its revenue? thats suicide for a company in the long run is what it is.
I dont think that all MBA's are bad, but to often they manage to ignore the advice of the proffesionals in the field who understand the customers and the product.
And never let an MBA try to get involved with IT, there are things that Windows machines were never ment to do and control machines that make pumps for oil rigs and nuclear reactors is one of them.
[This message has been edited by Tyvar (edited 03-20-2002).]
Jake
[b]And never let an MBA try to get involved with IT, there are things that Windows machines were never ment to do and control machines that make pumps for oil rigs and nuclear reactors is one of them.[/b][/quote]
Yeah, whatever happened to the term "Mission Critical anyway?!?!?! [img]http://216.15.145.59/mainforums/biggrin.gif[/img]
------------------
[b][url="http://www.minbari.co.uk/log12.2263/"]Required reading[/url][/b]
Never eat anything bigger than your own head.
The Balance provides. The Balance protects.
"Nonono...Is not [i]Great[/i] Machine. Is...[i]Not[/i]-so-Great Machine. It make good snow cone though." - Zathras
[b]Case in point: [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Sorcerer's[/b] Stone[/i]. Renamed from the original [i]Harry Potter and the [b]Philosopher's[/b] Stone[/i] because the marketing people in the US felt that their name would have more impact and thus greater sales, despite the original title (and story) being based on and using a real-life alchemical legend by the author: the Philosopher's Stone.
The best option would be to have an artist an a money person working together at the top. Then they could help each other see the risks and benefits and both sides of the problem.
[/B][/quote]
Ahh, so that's what it was. I almost considered buying an HP toy collectible because I thought it could be valuable hence the misspelled name. Glad I didn't.
But the whole "let's change the name because it sounds better" thing is just outragous when it comes to the artist's rights.
Also unfortunately, most stockholders are notoriously fickle when it comes to who they're going to back. When you're competing for people to spend their money on you, then you have to show that you can do things more efficeintly (read cheaply or profitably) than the other guy. There are two ways to be profitable: Increase revenue or decrease cost. It takes creativity and a willingness to take calculated risks to increase revenue. It's no sweat to cut costs.
When you think of the climate that a CEO, CFO or other company officer lives under, then it's a no-brainer. Each of them knows going into the job that they're going to get fired, it's just a matter of when. They're terrified to take risks, because if they screw it up, then the axe falls that much faster. If they cut costs, then they show a profit. Besides, why should they worry if the company will eventually self destruct. The odds are that they'll be gone and at another company when that happens, then the current serving CEO takes the blame.
It is my belief that artistic creativity, whether music, dramatic arts (including movies), games, etc. is best left to the smaller, private companies. The realities of financing, however, lead to a different conclusion. A movie takes $70+ million for a moderate budget, plays take $10+ million to produce and games (I'm just guessing, but correct me if I'm wrong) about $15 +- million to produce and market. An individual company who wants to be competative has to seek outside funding. When they do that, the product is no longer their own, but is the responsibility of the backer. And nobody wants to back a dog, so you hire a GM to make sure that it's done under budget, then you have to hire someone to handle marketing.... before you know it, you have a big company, and to pay all those salaries, you have to go public or go bankrupt. Oops, now that you're public, you have stockholders you have to answer to....
Okay, I've forgotten my point, but there was one. I'll shut up now.
[b]
Nothing personal, of course. Whoever makes a broad generalization is bound to be partially wrong.
You're absolutely right about the fact that having someone who specializes in money issues allows the artist to do art. If that were all they did we’d be in good shape. Instead, MBA’s are often given complete control of which projects will be produced. Since their main concern seems to be mitigating risk, and because the ones I’m talking about don’t have the background or aptitude to productively evaluate complex artistic content, often times the end result is that rather mundane, low risk, projects are chosen for production, instead of projects that have higher artistic value and greater risk because they push the envelope – or projects are not chosen simply because they are not understood by MBA’s who don’t have the background to ‘get it’.
This may be good for business in the short term, but it stifles the evolution of art. In the long term the marketplace becomes bored. Buying goes down. This results in more aggressive marketing, which only works on the short term. In the long term the market place becomes jaded with aggressive marketing.
In my opinion the end result is that marketing is forced to aggressively target young people, because the previous generations have become too jaded to be effectively marked. In other words, they don’t believe marketers anymore, and refuse to buy, sometimes just out of principle.
In my opinion it would be better to take a little more risk, allow the art to evolve, market quality projects, and build a marketplace that spans several generations of happy, expectant buyers.
There are exceptions. I’ve run across a few film producers who are also very knowledgeable about film production. Artists who get to work with them are fortunate. I can also think of a few artists who are great at handling their own business. But I think these people are rare, and the system needs to account for the fact that business people often shouldn’t be allowed to make artistic decisions because they simply don’t have the background. Vice versa is true as well. There needs to be a fusion – a fluid decision-making process that takes into account both the evolution of the art and sound business practices.
In order for this to happen there needs to be mutual respect between business concerns and artistic concerns. MBA’s should do what they do best. Artists (content providers) should do what they do best. Right now there is an imbalance. This is true for television, features films, book publishing, and interactive entertainment. Too much is at stake for society to focus only on the extreme maximization of profits while relegating ‘art’ to ‘commodity’.
[/b][/quote]
I must agree with my esteemed colleague, and I would like to share a few addendums to his comments.
When I was working on selling the concept of ITF around to other publishers and “partner-developers,” I had to do market research, and allot of it involved analysis of the stratification of the market among the various genre types (if you followed that sentence, the rest will be cake).
Here’s how the game market looks. Core gamers are only 30% of the market, but they make up 70%+ of the annual sales revenue for games, buying 12-18 titles/year. Keep in mind that these are unique titles (i.e. they don’t go buying 2-3 copies of the same game). Where it gets hard is with the “casual gamers.” These folks comprise 70% of the market, but only make up around 30% of the dollar revenue, HOWEVER it is the sales in this group that really makes or breaks a game success-wise.
While certain niche games sell very well (such as Diablo, the Doom/Quake series, Sim”Whatever”), these are well-established, quality franchises with broadband recognition within and without the core gaming community.
Now, let’s take a game like, oh, say, FreeSpace. This immediately has two things working against it:
1. Lack of Broadband Recognition: The franchise is new, and when you drop that baby in Wal-Mart, mom and dad aren’t going to know it from Dig-Dug. If it’s sitting next to “Star Wars: X-wing Collector’s Edition,” X-wing will outsell it, because Mom and Dad know that little Timmy LOVES Star Wars, and will assume the game is good based on that alone (even though the engine is 3 or 4 generations outdated, and gets frustrating as hell after mission 4).
2. Budget. Because it isn’t recognized, even if the developer has a decent track record, marketing money won’t follow that product. Building a new brand is an expensive proposition, and the marketing of that product can quickly outpace the game’s production costs. A publisher literally has to “pay” for premium locations at retail outlets, much as they do for ads.
So, this actually explains the quick and dirty “Pokemon”, “Who Wants to Be a Millionaire”, “Survivor”, “Deer Hunter”, etc. titles: they’re quick to make, cheap to market, and carry immediate brand recognition with them to the rack at the local thrift-store. Why do you think that, in 2000 alone, [b]eight[/b] different Star Trek games came out?
Let me ask this: Which do you expect to sell better: “Jedi Knight II,” or “No One Lives Forever 2”? Pretty much a no brainer, right? Both are going to cost about the same to make.
It’s my belief that what many of the publishers are fighting with now is maintaining the balance of keeping the High-maintenance/high expectations of the core gamer balanced with the steady income of the mainstream market.
My opinion is that to succeed and survive, a studio has to do both. You need the Q&D income to finance the Art. It’s like having a power split in Washington between the Democrats and Republicans. Tilt to far to either side, and the country will go to hell in a hand basket.
The problem is that right now the skew is going way to far to one side at a few of these companies.
-Rick
PS: For the record: If ITF was dropped into aisle displays at Wall-Mart, and had ads that appeared in Entertainment Weekly, Sports Illustrated, TV Guide, and TIME magazine, our numbers forcase (conservatively) that we could have easily met, and most likely exceeded, 1M sell-thorough units worldwide. That assumes that less than 5% of the B5 fans would buy the game, and less than 1% of the mass casual market bought it. Being realistic about it, that probably would have added ~$10M to the publisher’s post-expense bottom line in the year published.
------------------
[i]"...Never start a fight...but [b]always[/b] finish it."[/i]
On a similar note to short term thinking:
There are a lot of fundamental economic problems that can be traced to the sudden boom in the American stock markets. People have gotten in that have no business being there.
Here is how I see it:
1: The economy was experiencing a moderate upswing coming out of the #1 Bush admin and going into the Clinton admin.
2: The fed (we can debate if it was under pressure from Clinton or not) didn't raise interest rates to keep the expansion happening at a more reasonable rate and they also continued to print money.
3: With a really low interest rate people ran out to get loans and had huge sums of money they had to throw at something/anything.
4: There was a sudden flood of crap Internet ventures and advertising.
5: The economy BOOMED and went out of control on loaned money, people were throwing away their money on "high tech" IPO's. Since everyone was investing in mutual funds the houses were using short term boom strategies to attract more customers.
6: Finally! The fed raised the rates, siting "irrational exuberance."
7: Japan and South America's economy take hits because of bad banking and corruption
8: Everyone realized it's been a bubble, the companies that they've invested in are worth nothing and produce nothing.
9: BUST!
10: People run from the market or dive into emotionally comforting stocks like LMT or Krispy Kreme.
11: Money at theses "high tech" companies evaporates, they've been paying salaries with investor money because none of them have seen a profit yet:
12: They fold, unemployment goes up.
13: Unfortunately people who are short term thinkers and boom/bust cycle short term gamblers like the knave was talking about are in positions of power at the surviving companies. The market still has a bunch of short-term thinkers in it.
So thanks to pressure from someone in the Government, or someone at the fed wanting to reside over a booming economy so they could go down in history and write their book about being the greatest economist ever, perhaps Greenspan, perhaps all of them, they ****ed all of us over in the long term.
(There is plenty more detail, but I could write my Doctoral Thesis on this idea.)
It is all a result of the (Generalized) Baby Boomers mentality when they were growing up that “we could die tomorrow when the bombs start falling so live today” and the (Generalized) Generation Xers “**** everyone else it all about Me Me Me” attitude.
Ask yourself are you contributing to the problem of short term thinking: Have you ever been on the highway in a crawling traffic jam in the right lane and cut onto and raced down an onramp to get ahead of ten or so cars… only to slow everyone else behind you even more because of the slowing nature of your merging. I see it all the time in DC, if you do it your part of this short term thinking problem.
Lately I’ve been trying to break away from the vacuum of being a self centered asshole, I try and be more patient and for the past few months I’ve tried to go out of my way to do something for another person every few hours even if it’s small.
"My opinion is that to succeed and survive, a studio has to do both. You need the Q&D income to finance the Art."
Very well put. You have to have some low risk bread and butter to pay for the veal.
I think things will tip back towards moderation soon. We had our time of crazed investing, and we are now in the time of obsesive security.
Ah it all comes back to my mantra of "Everything in Moderation!"