GamingVogue writes: Peter Moore is a very well known industry figure and he doesn’t shy away from tough questions.
"Anything that doesn’t hit that top 20 or 25 finds it very difficult to justify itself, its existence, and you kind of wonder why you did it.”
It's called ART. Though I understand that the game industry is mostly screwed in these regards. Way too expensive of an art form.
Where does this guy think big ideas and success come from? Small places. Then they evolve into the only thing this guy cares about, money.
Thank hell for that 20 percent. Much of the creativity that the 80 percent rips off and commercializes comes from there.
“We’re accused of being too safe, but then I’ll point to Mirror’s Edge — not a commercial success in the broad terms that we look at it, but certainly as an innovation, was brilliant. The art style, the character herself, the idea of taking this kind of parkour thing but a backstory of authoritarianism in cities, it was brilliant. Again, and you take risks — we don’t get credit a lot for the risks we take." I know you are eager to bash Peter Moore (former M$ exec and all) but at least try reading the whole article before you do.
They don't take risks. That was a shot, it hit, but didn't hit big with money....so where is the sequel? We won't see one because EA rather play it safe. They'd get credit for the game if the sequel was even in the works right now, but its not. This just proves mr Trettons comment....you grow something. The way he says it, you either hit or miss, you don't grow anything. Mirrors Edge could easily evolve into something great if EA would just take the risk....
Thing is they'd still be playing it safe if something like Mirror's Edge was a sales as well as review success. Only instead of possibly biding their time with a sequel, hopefully fixing what was wrong, they'd have shoved another game right after it with the same and greater flaws. There are just too many instances of them doing just that. Better they wait than grind it to nothing.
SoldierOne New IPs are equivalent to taking risks, and EA has been producing more of them than most other publishers. Where's a Mirror's Edge sequel? If you build a product and it loses money, it's only logical from a business point of view that you're not going to do the same thing again. It's called risk assessment - a new product has a high likelihood to fail, but may offer a big return. A sequel to a product that failed has a much higher likelihood to fail, and will at most offer a very small return. It doesn't make any sense for them to produce a sequel if it's guaranteed to fail. That's not taking risks, that's committing corporate suicide.
I guess the last two MoH games fell off the cliff then.
That's why this industry will be not sequels because ts too much about money and new IP's going forward are too big of a risk. Think about it moving forward games will cost 40 plus million atleast the big ones and would you risk that type of money if a return isn't a sure thing? Whether we like it or not people buy sequels and their favorite franchises that's why there is another Halo triilogy and COD along with new AC games every year. That's the reason god of war and uncharted will get more sequels and prequels. Sleeping dgs which is a great game sold 160k unites in ts first month and people asked why activision dropped the game and than RE6 which wasn't as good of a game sells 3 millin. Gaming business is very cruel Every gamer asks for new IP's but than when it launches the same day as their favorite game they choose the sequel and say I will wait for a price drop. Why KOA didn't sell and skyrim sold 10 plus million is beyond me, KOA is an excellent RPG and now that studio is out of business So in the future when we are blaming the publisher for sequels and no risk taking this is the reason why. They get the blame but we get the bigger part of that blame
Yes well, tell that to Sony. They arent afraid to support niche titles like Twisted Metal, HR, LBP or Demons Souls. They have their sure hits like GT or Uncharted but they are one of the few publishers taking risks and looking out for gamers that want more than just shooters.
No doubt but hey have always been like that since entering the gaming business. Beyond 2 souls and last of us. Also games like sly which is getting a sequels and ratchet. Ga,ea's like sky and ratchet wouldn't exist or wouldn't get as many sequels if it wasn't for any, most publishers see a game selling few million and that's not good enough.
Sony and Microsoft are going to have to make game development faster and cheaper if they expect developers to stick with consoles. The media sites and magazines deserve a lot of blame as well. They have consistently raised expectations about how good graphics need to be for videogames, and honestly Xbox 1 was good enough.
This is why gaming sucks lately. Everything needs to be simplified, revolving around guns, humans, and "realism." What happen to the simply fun games? They got tossed aside because publishers rather make money than games people want.... A game like Mirrors Edge is called a failure at EA, yet look at the praise it got from fans, and people wanting more. They don't care. Money doesn't come with it, then who cares right? this is why I'm hoping Sony and MS open the same door Steam opened and allow lower budget titles on their stores. We will see quality games again.
Tell you what. You make a product that is awesome, but costs more to make than brings in revenue for you. See how long you can keep that up, soldier. I love how gamers are so quick to criticise game publishers but fail to realise that perhaps, just perhaps, it's not a good thing if a game costs $40 million to make but doesn't turn a healthy profit. Armchair experts everywhere.
I'm so glad you said that MattS. We hear the same claims from other gamers like Soldierone all the time and it's nothing new. Some of you just don't get it. The videogame industry isn't the altruistic world of fan obsessions. I love gaming too and want new IP's but companies have to make money so people that work for them can eat. Have fun in the real world.
How about taking out the 100's of people making a single game and put them on different games, and try something new? Instead of rehashing the COD technique every year for every shooter? Naughty Dog was making games with less than 100 people....and GG is probably Sony's biggest company and makes money off every game sold. How is it EA can make some lackluster titles and not be making money? How about you guys stop drinking the kool-aid every PR feeds you and stop letting them push you around, then turn around and attack the people that want better? EA releases how many yearly titles to millions in sales? Your telling me none of that is making them money to spend elsewhere? This is like a Hollywood company crying about losing money shortly before releasing a movie to millions in sales the following weekend.... Indie developers are doing fine. Not EVERY game needs to be AAA quality, some of us are fine with a simply fun game and will gladly buy it. Why not adjust the price point? Developers have been crying about sales ever since they raised the price to 60 dollars, how ironic. EA has plenty of money, they just want more, end of story.
You can tell @Soldierone hasn't ever been a decision-maker at a major corporation. So, once again. Armchair experts. If only they realised how embarrassing the crap they say is.
If only love and praise would support the teams making those games, and if it would give revenue confidence to the suits running the business, I'm pretty sure Mirror's Edge would span through two sequels and several spin-offs now.
What do you mean they rather make money than games people want? Of course they rather make money. They're a BUSINESS. Not a charity. Not a non-profit organization. They "stopped" making fun games because the people didn't buy them. Critical acclaim doesn't pay bills. Money does. Maybe if more people bought the game, it might have gotten a sequel. Prepare to be disappointed because it's gonna be the same ol' **** again. Haven't they already done it with XBL and PSN?
Im here to hear how these guys who spend all day on N4G magically know how to fix the economy of gaming. Oh, you just need to be unique? do tell me more about how your an expert on everything.
Gaming economy doesnt need saving. Not when games are released with € 60 worth of dlc or when we are charged € 5 for 3 aditional costumes. With the amout of money greedy publishers make on DLC alone I would think that they could take a few risks. Yes I know that EA is going bankrupt with a measley $3.8 billion in revenues for 2011 fiscal year but i just wished that they would not turn DS into a generic shooter.
gosh i love indie developers and pc gaming.pc always has new,weird,artsy,fun,challengin g games cause of indie developers.
If that's the case, better call in the coastguard or something to search for MoH's corpse.
Most games don't have the budget of the top 25 games. You don't have to sell ten million copies to be success. CD Projekt, Fromsoft, Platinum etc show that. Most of those 25 ain't that good either, that's what matters most to me.
"“It’s very difficult, if not impossible — I can’t think of new IP that launches five or six years into a generation of gaming hardware that is successful. It’s just not the time to do it.”" God of War says hi.
Bingo. Well, to be fair I can't think of any other examples... but God of War shows that if the quality is high enough a new IP can be massively successful even at the end of a console generation.
Another example of Pareto's law...
Anyone else see a problem with that?
as long as they make a few sequels to new ip then they can afford to take a loss on the first title
N4G is a community of gamers posting and discussing the latest game news. It’s part of NewsBoiler, a network of social news sites covering today’s pop culture.