Warren spector tells you to give up

[cliffski]

I heard the same crap each year from molyneux:
http://games.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/05/12/203255
I wish these cynical elderly millionaires would sod off and leave this industry to people who actually care about games.
Yes, it really does annoy me this much :D

[Davaris]

Who cares about this guy? He's just a AAA dude. They make the same games year after year. Boring! :)

[Sharpfish]

I don't think he's specifically addressing our type of indie though. I imagine he means small studios who are putting $$$ into a business and risking loosing a fortune in the long run (or at least not recouping costs).

The way I see it, if I want to make games I will make games for the love of games and not for money, so to say "give up" is ridiculous. Does he think that it's only about money? Maybe, and that is why I think he is directing it at teams who hope to be the next id or valve or whatever.

I know people who would still make games even if no-one ever even downloaded it never mind buy it. Of course, that wouldn't be anything to base a full business on but for self sufficient part time / full time / small team indies it's really up to the individual/team to decide when to give up.

When to give up? when all the games you want to make, that you have a passion to make are made and released... even if it takes the rest of your lifetime and little income (with a different full time job to support you).

Edit> it also appears he thinks that anyone who makes indiegames wants in on the retail games industry and are using it as a stepping stone, doesn't he realise many people have left the big companys specifically to work as an indie and probably have no desire to return. I have to admit I hate to see business and beurocracy getting in the way of what I consider to be an "art" of sorts. Back in the early days if all those visionaries had been told to "give up" and listened we wouldn't have had any progress. That is the problem with a market that makes lots of money (potentially) it draws in the suits and business people and they end up controlling far too much of what should be creative based output. Sometimes, selfishly, I still wish gaming was the small/niche/nerd activity it was in the 80's where everyone involved was there for the right reasons (mostly).

[Allen Varney]

I have known Warren Spector for 22 years and am pretty close with him, and I guarantee he is nothing close to a millionaire. After his long and much-lauded career he is working harder than ever to persuade studios to fund his projects, simply because Warren Spector games aren't like anyone else's. And his passion for games matches that of anyone on this board.

If you read the story, as opposed to the bad Slashdot summary, you'll see Warren is saying ambitious newcomers should go indie instead of trying to sell their ideas to big corporations.

[Sysiphus]

If you read the story, as opposed to the bad Slashdot summary, you'll see Warren is saying ambitious newcomers should go indie instead of trying to sell their ideas to big corporations.

If that's the exact message(have only read some parts), I'd agree. But 100% is never real in anything(each story has different factors and lucks). Sometimes casual ideas get into and make huge bucks. Is just rare.There are also many types of companies and genres and types of business.

Too much ambition, though, is probably a sure trap. But too little, also.

The company I work at, pay only a very few good salaries(few guys carefully chosen) and make the bosses win a bunch of dollars, and is absolutely all casual games. There's one larger project making us loose more(too much) resources and money, and the main reason is...it is not casual. I'm on the idea, each one have to do what is ok with his/her resources and possibilities(time, money, software,skills, machines..). And am seing how casual games are giving them(not me) much more money than the earned by other friends having strong positions in main country's game companies.

Just a ver fast glance allows seing many people doing nice bucks of it all. Depending on the term "nice". AAA companies needs to pay huge bills, indies, way smaller ones(way more benefit to the author, specially if one or 2 people).

[Anthony Flack]

Fair enough, too.

I'm not going to stop making videogames, but I'm not expecting to get to the top of this corrupt, mouldy industry. Anyone dreaming of great success working on their own personal creations should certainly give up. Anyone who's willing to put up with a lot of hard work and pain for little personal reward, though, will persevere.

[svero]

What if I want personal reward AND a yacht?

[PoV]

Warren spector tells you to give up
Aww... if he says so. Darn, I was actually enjoying myself.

[Anthony Flack]

What if I want personal reward AND a yacht?

I suggest you inherit a fortune from a wealthy, eccentric old uncle.

[Fost]

Indie does not equal Independent

He's talking about independent studios - places like Lionhead (were pre-E3) and so on, who aren't attached to a big publisher. I don't know what it's like anywhere else - but in the UK independent developers seem to dissappear every week. In fact, since we (at Moonpod) left the mainstream industry, we are the only people from 30+ staff at the place we used to work that haven't had more than one job.

Still, there are some success stories - look at Ninja Theory.

[destron]

yeah, warren spector is one smart guy - and as davaris stated - a "AAA dude". but i think he's missing the point when he says that - what was it?... something about "zero percent of those who dream of making a game that will bring in hundreds of millions of dollars will actually do it" -- or whatever it was - i think that he's targeting the 15 and 16 year old kids who dream of making the next doom or quake or whatever, and have no realistic vision of what the game developing industry is like. i, for one, (in my opinion) have a realistic view of it and i'm not dreaming of making the next doom or quake, but simply making games because that's what i would like to do and it would probably bring in a substantial income, and i think that's what most indies think.

anyway, that's my take on it, feel free to butcher it and point out all of my errors.

[cliffski]

the problem these guys have (molyneux is the same, trust me) is that if everyone who wanted to make games did what we are doing, there would be nobody to work 12 hour crunch times on the triple A projects.
And I'd wager we'd have a lot more innovation in the industry if that happened.

[Sakura Games]

Not everyone going indie can make it. Plenty fail and fall back to those 12h crunching days.
You can't talk like if all people who have normal jobs (gaming industry or not) are idiots because they work like slaves, just because you made it - you should consider yourself very lucky in this moment because you're a minority and not a majority ;)

[cliffski]

plenty of big companies fail too. I know a ton of people just made redundant at Lionhead.

[Sysiphus]

Yep, a "job" in game industry(at least in my area) must not be done for the safety thing, lol. Been at 2 which broke. And one more is in the long agony. (hey! don't look at me! ;) )
Right now at an ..stable? (maybe) one...But you know.

yup, to me indy world is a big hope for creativity and the possible ending of slavery for some...

[Gilzu]

Did you really thought that a big company would just step out and say: "Hey! we want aspired & innovative indies to compete with our products!"

[destron]

so basically you guys are saying that you think Spector is trash-talking indies to deter competition? i suppose it's possible.

[DFG]

The Internet is the great equalizer for the indie and makes the dream of success very possible. Many indies have proven that they can make it without a publisher by utilizing the distribution power of the Internet. It just means you have to branch your skills out past game development and get a firm ground in marketing.

So I guess I just want to encourage the little guy to keep up the fight.

[destron]

yeah, it seems like indies are frowned upon as 'the lowest of the low' not capable of creating good games; but there's this company called SpiderWeb software or something and the owner has a six figure income -- hey, i'd be happy with that.

[Sakura Games]

but there's this company called SpiderWeb software or something and the owner has a six figure income -- hey, i'd be happy with that.
Please post a link to a reputable website or interview where you found this information?

[Davaris]

Heh! Heh!. There's no way he's on 6 figures and he even if he was, he wouldn't tell anyone.

[Savant]

And I'd wager we'd have a lot more innovation in the industry if that happened.
Nonsense. Indie or AAA, it doesn't matter. It comes down to the person at the top of the design chain to make something innovative.

There are tons of indies, right now, developing games - how many of them are breaking molds and doing something new? Almost zero percent. I'm not sure how having more developers in the pool would make the water any warmer.

[Davaris]

I was wondering when the undercover AAA dude would give his 2c. ;)

There are tons of indies, right now, developing games - how many of them are breaking molds and doing something new?


At least they are doing something different as apposed to AAA shooters, sports and racing games. Yawn... Hell even RPGs are FPS shooters now. Double yawn...

[Anthony Flack]

He's talking about independent studios - places like Lionhead (were pre-E3) and so on, who aren't attached to a big publisher.

It's really devastating that independent studios can't survive in the current environment, and points towards serious problems I think.

Still, at least Treasure are still going strong.

As for the "AAA" studios not doing anything interesting; well, we hear that a lot around here, but it's really not true. There are still creative, interesting products coming out from the likes of Namco, Sony, Konami, Sega, Nintendo etc.

[destron]

Please post a link to a reputable website or interview where you found this information? sorry, i got it wrong - the games make six figures a year... so i don't know what he makes, but still... for an indie that's pretty good. and that came out of "Game Design - Secrets of the Sages" book that i have. and that was written a few years ago so the story might be different now.

EDIT:
and i guess you can butcher me now because i just found out he's not the president anymore, though he still works there.

[RedKnight]

As for the "AAA" studios not doing anything interesting; well, we hear that a lot around here, but it's really not true. There are still creative, interesting products coming out from the likes of Namco, Sony, Konami, Sega, Nintendo etc.


Yeah you only choose japanese studios.:D
at least these people don't repack "Most" of their stuff, and sell it as a sequel.

[Sysiphus]

He's talking about independent studios - places like Lionhead (were pre-E3) and so on, who aren't attached to a big publisher.
It's really devastating that independent studios can't survive in the current environment, and points towards serious problems I think.

I have said it before, but to me that the very hi res 3d(normal and parallax maps) required for building huge worlds of film quality is something that can't be aforded in money, time, and workers by small studios...nor even middle sized. Unless the time frame got so long that a huge funding would be needed. but even so. The complexity also in coding and game design is such that I can understand that it happens.Imagine companies of hundreds of employees with not as much coordination as would be desirable... Add to it they have to compete with big $ licenses of some old succesful titles, and that pc AAA is to me loosing the match very fast compared with consoles(which btw have even stronger filters for a company to develope for; is even more closed terrain).

There are also huge demands , technical ones. And unlike in indy games (where, while quality bar is growing (probably bad thing, a good game can be a good game with just some pacman sprites), you have a lot of freedom ) they just can't avoid those high standards.

This is very bad for variety in games. Risks are less and less taken in game design, and having just a very few big companies producing, is terrible for innovation. Yet though some very few yet innovate in their fields. In what they can, that is.

[Savant]

At least they are doing something different as apposed to AAA shooters, sports and racing games. Yawn... Hell even RPGs are FPS shooters now. Double yawn...
Where did I say that AAA developers were doing a better job than indies at innovating? Stop reading between lines that don't exist.

[Savant]

Speaking of SpiderWeb, they seem to think you should give up too (http://forums.indiegamer.com/showthread.php?t=7144).

[Savant]

Sorry to keep rambling but this is so true it needs to be quoted here. This is from the original article:

Companies that originally intended to develop sports games but ultimately broke into the puzzle or casual games market won’t find it easy to return to their original area of focus.

“You can’t go make Bejeweled [a puzzle game] and then tell EA you want to make Madden,” said Mr. Spector, referring to Electronic Arts’ lucrative John Madden-inspired football game series, a perennial hit for the entertainment software giant.

While that may be an extreme example, past performance is the ultimate predictor—and potential limiter—of future performance.

Basically what I've been saying: Doing casual games "short term" to get your business off the ground is NOT a good strategy in the long term. It fractures your companies positioning and you don't have any foundation to build on.

And Spector even goes on below to say that you CAN succeed. You simply need to go where the big guys aren't.

[soniCron]

Doing casual games "short term" to get your business off the ground is NOT a good strategy in the long term. It fractures your companies positioning and you don't have any foundation to build on. Warren's point was that simply creating a game doesn't necessarily prepare you for the work of a much bigger or different project. When using past projects to entice potential publishers, completely unrelated titles aren't going to fill said publishers with confidence. (Apples and oranges.) However, this has nothing to do with leveraging casual games (or any other medium, for that matter) as a means of providing capital for a bigger, future project. There is nothing inherent in making casual games (or children's games, or serious games, etc.) that destroys the future of a company. It's a matter of focus, determination, and hard work. If the team is strong and versatile, then there's no reason to assume just making a casual game will spell disaster for the future of the organization.

[Sakura Games]

And Spector even goes on below to say that you CAN succeed. You simply need to go where the big guys aren't.
Releasing a "short term" casual game doesn't mean necessarily a clone. Could be a casual game with different flavour and that could make you more rich than any niche game I know about.

[Savant]

If the team is strong and versatile, then there's no reason to assume just making a casual game will spell disaster for the future of the organization.
The basis of his point, which I agree with, is that generally when indie companies start going down the casual road they don't come back. They make enough money to fund the next puzzle game and so they continue on with the company line of, "One day, after we're stable, we're going to make the game we really want to make". Very few ever do that, however. They can't get off the treadmill once they start running.

[soniCron]

You blame casual games as the cause of not being able to get off the proverbial treadmill, but you're not citing the reason. Please explain why casual game development itself has anything to do with this.

[Anthony Flack]

Yeah you only choose japanese studios.

Of course. I'm hardly going to say American studios are fostering innovation, am I? Looking at my game collection, US-made games barely rate a mention.

It's very hard to make any case for US-based innovation without mentioning Will Wright. It's not for lack of talent, but I guess the corporate culture is just too ugly. Japanese studios continue to lead the way by holding on to their top talent and letting them get on with the business of designing new games.

And British studios used to innovate, except they've largely gone out of business now...

[Savant]

You blame casual games as the cause of not being able to get off the proverbial treadmill, but you're not citing the reason. Please explain why casual game development itself has anything to do with this.
I loathe to do so because you're clearly not reading my posts, but ... if they make a casual game for the purposes of "getting started" they're going to make barely enough money to fund the next one (if they don't create the next Diner Dash or Bejeweled). They don't have enough money to fund the game they really want to do, so they make another casual game with the same hope in mind. And hey, before you know it, they're on the treadmill to NowhereVille.

[soniCron]

But, what you're saying has nothing inherently to do with casual games. That's a matter of the team not excelling enough to leap out of the cycle and propel themselves to where they'd rather be. You could replace "casual games" with any number of markets and come to the same conclusion, none of which are the fault of the market -- they all speak about the inadequecies of the development team, et al.

Regardless, I think we're clear on your stance of the "leap-frog" approach to obtaining capital. However, what you haven't identified is an alternative. What should these developers be doing instead?

[Anthony Flack]

Working on the sorts of things they actually intend to build their long-term business around, presumably.

[soniCron]

Working on the sorts of things they actually intend to build their long-term business around, presumably. Aren't they leveraging casual game development because they can't afford to do that?

[Ricardo C]

I must be missing something, since I don't see Spector's words as necessarily aimed at the type of indie most of us represent (the "garage dev" working from home with little to no overhead). His warnings seem perfectly sound when aimed at those developers looking to play the corporate game. But a "total indie" in full control of what he does doesn't seem to be what Spector had in mind.

I came away from reading the article with his last paragraph stuck in my head. "Go where the big guys aren't. Embrace the chaos". That's the message for us, folks.

[Chris Evans]

Aren't they leveraging casual game development because they can't afford to do that?

Personally, I think "can't" is an illusion. Most people leverage casual game development because they think it's the "safer" option not because they're incapable of creating the game they want.

A lot of people just see it as two options. Either create my "Dream" game, which will take 16-20 months to make and has no clear examples of success. Or create a casual game in 3-6 months, which if it reaches the portal top ten I'll be rich or well off. Obviously a great majority of people choose option 2. But there's also an option 3. Create a game that you truly enjoy, but reduce it to it's basic components so you can finish it within 6-9 months. Then once it's out, keep adding stuff to it. So even if it's not a hit out of the gate, you can slowly build momentum.

The problem with casual games is that if you have a dud, there's not much you can do with it. You can improve it but portals only re-release hits. Outside of portals, it's really hard to get any kind of exposure or traction for casual games, so you're basically stuck. For example, I know a lot of devs who managed to get on BigFish, got good exposure for a couple of weeks, then got shoved to the back pages after a month or so. In the end, they've made about a couple thousand dollars for the first month and then it just trickles in afterwards with no hope of future promotion. Aside from the few standouts, this is where the majority of devs will end up when submitting to portals (assuming you even successfully get on one of them). You get a quick burst of money, then it's dry, very dry. Most of these devs then struggle to barely sell 1 copy a day of their match-3 on their website.

I'm not trying to bash portals/casual games. But there seems to be this false illusion that developing casual games is the sound business decision to build up capital for your company. I wonder if new devs are aware of the huge gaps between the games in the top spots and all the rest. If you don't hit it out of the park, you probably won't even be able to recoup the cost of your artist. Using a baseball analogy, a home run may be worth $60,000 - +$250,000, but a typical base hit is just worth $1500 - 4000. You can't build a business off that and if you can then why do you need to do casual games to build up capital in the first place...

As Svero said, it was possible a few years ago to spend 2-3 months making an average casual game and get a good ROI on portals. But those days are gone. These days, an average game won't get you on portals. If you make an above average game, it will probably give you a poor ROI (1-2k revenue off 4-6 months of work). Creating an exceptional casual game requires high quality (most likely contracted) art and sound, and a development schedule of 9 - 18 months. The potential revenue is huge, but it's also very risky and requires a large initial investment.

At least with a Core or niche game, there's a greater opportunity to gradually build up direct sales over time. So even if it's lackluster out of the gate with steady improvements and good marketing you can turn it into a successful product. Lux is a perfect example of this.

But, what you're saying has nothing inherently to do with casual games. That's a matter of the team not excelling enough to leap out of the cycle and propel themselves to where they'd rather be.

I don't think it's a matter of not excelling enough. There's quite a few examples of Indies who have made a lot money with casual games but still keep creating casual games even though they're very stable financially. Sure they may occasionally dip their toes into non-casual games, but the great majority of their output is still casual games. That's what makes them money, so that's what they keep developing.

[Davaris]

The basis of his point, which I agree with, is that generally when indie companies start going down the casual road they don't come back. They make enough money to fund the next puzzle game and so they continue on with the company line of, "One day, after we're stable, we're going to make the game we really want to make". Very few ever do that, however. They can't get off the treadmill once they start running.


The other point you haven't considered is they may not want to get off the treadmill. They may have lost interest in the type of games they wanted to make previously, because their tastes have matured.

[Christian]

We a person with entrepeneur spirit sees an oportunity, no opinions will stop him/her of taking that oportunity. So, we just have to see that oportunity.

"Go where the big guys aren't. Embrace the chaos". SIR YES SIR!!!! ;)

[Savant]

The other point you haven't considered is they may not want to get off the treadmill. They may have lost interest in the type of games they wanted to make previously, because their tastes have matured.
Yeah, obviously.

We're talking about developers who SAY they want to develop something else but keep cranking out what they think are the easy wins instead.

[tentons]

I have said it before, but to me that the very hi res 3d(normal and parallax maps) required for building huge worlds of film quality is something that can't be aforded in money, time, and workers by small studios...
I consider that a good thing since it will force smaller companies to find different visual styles that might actually be more interesting than photorealism. Constraint is the mother of invention.

[KNau]

Though going from casual games to publisher funded retail development is really just trading one death march for the other. Unless you own your IP and are cultivating your own audience eventually laziness of "I just wanna make games, I don't wanna run a business" will catch up with you.