The Podcast (interesting views)

[cliffbo]

putting aside 98% of the podcast, because of a fear of this thread getting locked, i found the statements about all developers only in it for the money very interesting. i'm not naive in the least and i have no doubt that most of the developers are in it for the money, but there is a distinction to be made here, surely.

are we saying that David Jaffe was in it for the money and the money only when he created GOW? i'm sure i've heard him say time and time again that he loves games and thats what motivates him the most when it comes to developing.

Are we also saying that Hideo Kojima has nothing more than money as an inspiration for his MGS games? i think this generalisation is a bit misleading and doesn't give credit where dredit is due.

yes money is important, but the good devs are more focussed on great gameplay and great realisation of it (initially) than in making huge profits. that's not naive. its the same as any other art form. does an artist paint a picture in the hope that it sells for vast amounts of money or has he simply put all of his heart and soul into creating something that he loved. money is a bi-product of many hours of creativity, not a motive in itself.

those devs that are in it for the money, make very little effort in improving their games and instead opt for slight upgrades in order to milk a franchise.

good games are made by devs that love their job. bad games are made by jaded devs that have business models.

[curryking1]

Money is important to the companies. Kojima just has a hell of a grip on the MGS franchise to do what he wants, that's probably why it's still only for the PS3.

Jaffe is under Sony, Sony knows Jaffe can do crazy stuff, so they let him do what he wants and fund him to do so, however, Sony is doing this because they think Jaffe can provide money making games if they simply give him the supplies and particulars.

99% of the time it's da moneyz.

Why do music artists make music? Why do labels give artists absurd amounts of money to make more lablels?

Labels are 100% aware of the creativity of music artists, and the labels will give them money because they know that creativity can be translated into millions of dollars for the label.

There is some purity of development and artists involved, but there is also the publisher, or the manager, or the big company funding you to be creative to take advantage and they only give this money to people to make more money back.

[cliffbo]

Money is important to the companies. Kojima just has a hell of a grip on the MGS franchise to do what he wants, that's probably why it's still only for the PS3.

Jaffe is under Sony, Sony knows Jaffe can do crazy stuff, so they let him do what he wants and fund him to do so, however, Sony is doing this because they think Jaffe can provide money making games.

99% of the time it's da moneyz.

i can't agree... did you see the pride of Media Molecule when they finally showed LBP off... i didn't see dollar signs in their eyes, i saw a childlike joy for what they created. of course all companies want to make money but creativity is something money can't buy. (FACT!)

you can throw as much money as you like at an uninterested, unimaginative dev and all he'll produce is expensive crap

[curryking1]

No you see, you missed the rest of my post where I edited lol!

There is some purity of game development involved.

However, Sony is the beast that is giving them money. Why? To take advantage of that creativity and make millions off of it.

The LBP creators are probably very natural people, most people are people, and like to make great stuff. People are normally proud when their creations are successful, unless you are a crazy person.

This giant conglomerate called Sony is not a person though, and it's a big monster that will gladly fund this company so they can make millions off of their creativity.

----

Artists make music, many times because they love to make music. Let's put Nelly Furtado here. She is or was a pure artist. Clearly at the conceptual time of her career, she was there to make fantastic music. She has a great story.'

Then some company comes along, recognizes this talent, says I want to give you money and the person agrees to make music under the publisher's name. The publisher is taking advantage of the artist's creativity, not that the artist doesn't get anything out of it either, but anyways...

Main point I'm trying to make, the CEOs and the Presidents and the VPs, they are there to make sure everything is profitable, that's their sole goal in that position. The developers can be as soulful or souless as they so please, they are the talent that is being farmed.

[cpiasminc]

You're clearly missing the point. "In it for the money" was not the point. It was that money is an absolute necessity and projects will not EVER be supported without it.

It doesn't matter how much Kojima *wants* to make a great game. If MGS 1/2/3 were financial failures, there would never be an MGS4 because no one would back the project. If God of War had not sold, there wouldn't be a God of War 2. The fact that there was even a God of War to begin with is because of Jaffe's track record prior.

those devs that are in it for the money, make very little effort in improving their games and instead opt for slight upgrades in order to milk a franchise.
Now who's generalizing?

good games are made by devs that love their job. bad games are made by jaded devs that have business models.
All game devs love their jobs. No human being would ever be able to do this kind of work every day if they didn't love it. Love doesn't get a good exchange rate on the dollar, though. You have to prove financially feasible.

[curryking1]

^Exactly.

Media Molecule would not be given money and not be possible if Sony didn't fund it. MGS4 would not exist if MGS1 to 3 were not successful. Kojima wouldn't be making MGS if MGS wasn't financially worth it.

Everything runs on money. If there is a hit, great, the dev, if they are such a dev, can continue with their idea and their creativity.

If it's not a hit and doesn't make money, nothing comes out of it later.

Also, humans naturally love their own success and their own creations. But they can't explore these ideas if they don't make money.

[Danji]

*clears throat* You just got served.

as for this conversation..I dunno, I'm not particularly interested.

[curryking1]

*clears throat* You just got served.

as for this conversation..I dunno, I'm not particularly interested.

You know you want to say something ;)

[cliffbo]

You're clearly missing the point. "In it for the money" was not the point. It was that money is an absolute necessity and projects will not EVER be supported without it.

yes thats a fact... but i never said otherwise

It doesn't matter how much Kojima *wants* to make a great game. If MGS 1/2/3 were financial failures, there would never be an MGS4 because no one would back the project. If God of War had not sold, there wouldn't be a God of War 2. The fact that there was even a God of War to begin with is because of Jaffe's track record prior.

again yes that is a fact, but again i haven't said otherwise. but didn't Jaffe take a back seat because he got tired of all the hassle and hard work that went into making GOW. i thought that was one of his motives to going back to 'grass roots programming' in the downloadable arena.

those devs that are in it for the money, make very little effort in improving their games and instead opt for slight upgrades in order to milk a franchise.

Now who's generalizing?

PES/FIFA/WWE/MADDEN/basket ball games/ice hockey games..... etc... is that really generalising?


All game devs love their jobs. No human being would ever be able to do this kind of work every day if they didn't love it. Love doesn't get a good exchange rate on the dollar, though. You have to prove financially feasible.

i fear for the future

[cliffbo]

^Exactly.

Media Molecule would not be given money and not be possible if Sony didn't fund it. MGS4 would not exist if MGS1 to 3 were not successful. Kojima wouldn't be making MGS if MGS wasn't financially worth it.

Everything runs on money. If there is a hit, great, the dev, if they are such a dev, can continue with their idea and their creativity.

If it's not a hit and doesn't make money, nothing comes out of it later.

Also, humans naturally love their own success and their own creations. But they can't explore these ideas if they don't make money.

but these are obvious points that only a real idiot would overlook! mmmmmmmm must try to understand why most people can't discuss aspects of something without taking the whole.

[Diresu]

Yes all devs are in it for the money. Maybe not because they are greedy and a business but because you need money to make games. If you love making them..you need financial backing to do so.

With that said I do agree that there is a number of devs who throw out ANYTHING just to try to cash in on it. The game in the end being crap is evidence that it was the potential cash cow that drove the development and not the will to create a good game. Money is always going to be the bottom line but you are full of shit if you tell me that every dev loves making games as much as david jaffe, or warren spector or kojima does. Ubisoft and EA being a prime example of this. They might try harder to make a good game so it can rake in more money but pumping money into a project with noone on there that is in it just to make a good game will end up a failure.

I think this is also one of the reasons Sony backs all these smaller companies that are just starting out. You get into the business because you love games, whether that holds true later is irrelevant. So when you have Sony funding your project all you have to worry about is making a good game opposed to worrying how the hell are you going to justify the cost.

P.S the podcast was very meh, same things said here rehashed.

[curryking1]

Ok here... here's my generalizing...

Good games are made by... devs with talent and who are fortunate to find publishers to fund the ideas behind their games.

Bad games are made by... devs who poorly implement a game idea, or devs who are not given a good opportunity to show their talent because of a lack of resources.

We are saying it's not really the devs who are either greedy or pure. We are saying that it's the publishers who are always 100% greedy and will have to control or satisfy their devs (depending on their relation with the dev) so the publisher can keep making money off of them.

The dev is like the talent, the project, the idea, the venture, the investment.

The publisher is like the executive of the system. The publisher must satisfy it's own needs to grow larger, and make more money, all the while properly funding it's dev, satisfying it's dev, and so on, lest to diminish that dev into nothingness with too much control or lack of funding.

----

The dev is like the artist. The talent, the voice everyone wants to hear, the body everyone wants to look at, the style everyone wants to get for themselves. They are the ones who make their life, their career, based on their own creations.

And the publisher swoops these things up and tries to get them started and then directs the money that people pay for the artist's creations and divides it among themselves and the artist.

----

The publisher is the executive of the whole thing. Sony is the executive, the talent snatcher, the money grabber.

Other executives who must satisfy both their wallet and their artists are Konami who must satisfy Kojima and themselves, and any other publisher who has varying types of relations with their developers.

[cliffbo]

Artists make music, many times because they love to make music. Let's put Nelly Furtado here. She is or was a pure artist. Clearly at the conceptual time of her career, she was there to make fantastic music. She has a great story.'

Then some company comes along, recognizes this talent, says I want to give you money and the person agrees to make music under the publisher's name. The publisher is taking advantage of the artist's creativity, not that the artist doesn't get anything out of it either, but anyways...

Main point I'm trying to make, the CEOs and the Presidents and the VPs, they are there to make sure everything is profitable, that's their sole goal in that position. The developers can be as soulful or souless as they so please, they are the talent that is being farmed.

but thats an entirely different argument... the bodcast was carte blank on the money issue making it sound like thats the only reason a game gets made. listen to it again. your summery is exactly how i see it word for word

[LaLiLuLeLo]

goddamnit why is this thread here? cliffbo we're (you're) driving this into the ground. I mean, you're making' John f***ing Henry look like an amateur. Give. it. a rest.

[cliffbo]

Yes all devs are in it for the money. Maybe not because they are greedy and a business but because you need money to make games. If you love making them..you need financial backing to do so.

With that said I do agree that there is a number of devs who throw out ANYTHING just to try to cash in on it. The game in the end being crap is evidence that it was the potential cash cow that drove the development and not the will to create a good game. Money is always going to be the bottom line but you are full of shit if you tell me that every dev loves making games as much as david jaffe, or warren spector or kojima does. Ubisoft and EA being a prime example of this. They might try harder to make a good game so it can rake in more money but pumping money into a project with noone on there that is in it just to make a good game will end up a failure.

I think this is also one of the reasons Sony backs all these smaller companies that are just starting out. You get into the business because you love games, whether that holds true later is irrelevant. So when you have Sony funding your project all you have to worry about is making a good game opposed to worrying how the hell are you going to justify the cost.

P.S the podcast was very meh, same things said here rehashed.

totally agree. the best games are made by devs with a vision not a big bank account.

[cpiasminc]

PES/FIFA/WWE/MADDEN/basket ball games/ice hockey games..... etc... is that really generalising?
Yes. You're drawing all your examples from the biggest of the big. How much can you possibly evolve a sports title, for instance? How much can another Halo differ from the last and still be "Halo"? And it's the big companies who own all these things.

There are more third parties out there than just EA and Vivendi. There are more 3rd party developers than all other development studios combined (and most of them are very small -- less than 100 people), and they do some real serious work, but they're swept under the rug and limited by low budgets and really being under the heel of publishers who can't count on their work being profitable. Titles like that disappear in the middle of the ballyhoo around another Madden which is provably profitable.

i fear for the future
Well, I'm not about to deny that. If the future is flooded with mediocrity, it's that way because buyers support mediocrity. It's nice to think about an industry where "quality is job 1", but I'd say the market really needs to get to about the point where close to 20% of the Earth's population are gamers before that's possible.

totally agree. the best games are made by devs with a vision not a big bank account.
Correction -- "vision AND a big bank account", even if that bank account isn't necessarily their own (which it usually isn't).

[cliffbo]

Yes. You're drawing all your examples from the biggest of the big. How much can you possibly evolve a sports title, for instance? How much can another Halo differ from the last and still be "Halo"? And it's the big companies who own all these things.

how different can RAC be from its predecessors?
how different can MGS be from its predecessors?
how different can FF be from its predecessors?
Halo could be different... KZ will be

There are more third parties out there than just EA and Vivendi. There are more 3rd party developers than all other development studios combined (and most of them are very small -- less than 100 people), and they do some real serious work, but they're swept under the rug and limited by low budgets and really being under the heel of publishers who can't count on their work being profitable. Titles like that disappear in the middle of the ballyhoo around another Madden which is provably profitable.

exactly, so those games were made because the devs loved what they did. how well did ICO do? was it good?

Well, I'm not about to deny that. If the future is flooded with mediocrity, it's that way because buyers support mediocrity.

which neatly brings us back to 'what if people refuse to buy them?'

Correction -- "vision AND a big bank account", even if that bank account isn't necessarily their own (which it usually isn't).[/QUOTE]

[curryking1]

Yes, cliffbo, I think you are putting too much of the focus on the developer themselves. The dev is just the dev, they make the game. More often than not the publisher can dictate with funding and constraints the limits of what the dev can do.

Publisher's pay their devs to make this mediocrity now because it sells a crapload. It's not really the dev because the lack some vision, or at least not all the time.

Most of the mediocrity I think stems from the publisher, not the game dev. Of course some game devs just don't implement good ideas and make bad games sometimes, but more often than not those guys won't get a safe place in the business for the future anyways. A lot of repeated mediocrity is probably, in my best guess, on the publisher's side of the blame.

As long as people still buy the mediocre titles, then publishers will continue to ask their devs to make those same games because they are probably cheaper to do.

[cpiasminc]

how different can RAC be from its predecessors?
how different can MGS be from its predecessors?
how different can FF be from its predecessors?
Halo could be different... KZ will be
Actually, all of those show pretty massive room for evolution from one iteration to the next (particularly MGS and FF). Just because it's not necessarily something you're capable of perceiving, doesn't mean it's not there. More often than not, the gamer is going to only perceive an evolution that is totally obvious, and that typically means the visual.

One of the games I'm working on has evolved in thousands of ways you'll never comprehend. But because it's also evolved in at least a couple of ways you can immediately comprehend, those will be what you and other forum-goers will either laud or express disdain for. Everything else will simply be a matter of "it never happened" even though the game would certainly be worse for it if that were the case.

exactly, so those games were made because the devs loved what they did. how well did ICO do? was it good?
I don't get where you get the infinitely misguided notion that they're the only devs who care about making good games? I also don't get why you seem to think they aren't necessarily concerned with crazy success? All game devs love to make games, and they all want to succeed doing what they want to do.

You keep confusing the "devs" with the people who pay them -- and it's not just you. Everybody seems to do it. It's not as though the people working on Madden are doing Madden by choice. They're doing Madden because the financial arm of EA said, "It's profitable, so we'll assign a team to the next one."

You're right that if the little guy never gets a shot at success, that we'll never see what gaming could be, but it's not as though there's no basis for them not getting a shot.

which neatly brings us back to 'what if people refuse to buy them?'
And buy what instead? What makes you think a hidden gem like ICO will be noticed just because nobody wants to buy Madden? How would the financial failure of FIFA mean that Clover Studios would still be around? I mean, previously everybody was screaming about how "3rd parties must die", and that's basically the same as saying "we should put an end to the games industry entirely." And don't kid yourself that it's any different, because it's not.

[curryking1]

Actually, all of those show pretty massive room for evolution from one iteration to the next (particularly MGS and FF). Just because it's not necessarily something you're capable of perceiving, doesn't mean it's not there. More often than not, the gamer is going to only perceive an evolution that is totally obvious, and that typically means the visual.

One of the games I'm working on has evolved in thousands of ways you'll never comprehend. But because it's also evolved in at least a couple of ways you can immediately comprehend, those will be what you and other forum-goers will either laud or express disdain for. Everything else will simply be a matter of "it never happened" even though the game would certainly be worse for it if that were the case.


I don't get where you get the infinitely misguided notion that they're the only devs who care about making good games? I also don't get why you seem to think they aren't necessarily concerned with crazy success? All game devs love to make games, and they all want to succeed doing what they want to do.

You keep confusing the "devs" with the people who pay them -- and it's not just you. Everybody seems to do it. It's not as though the people working on Madden are doing Madden by choice. They're doing Madden because the financial arm of EA said, "It's profitable, so we'll assign a team to the next one."

You're right that if the little guy never gets a shot at success, that we'll never see what gaming could be, but it's not as though there's no basis for them not getting a shot.


And buy what instead? What makes you think a hidden gem like ICO will be noticed just because nobody wants to buy Madden? How would the financial failure of FIFA mean that Clover Studios would still be around? I mean, previously everybody was screaming about how "3rd parties must die", and that's basically the same as saying "we should put an end to the games industry entirely." And don't kid yourself that it's any different, because it's not.

Quoted for damn truth. I'd bold more of it, and I probably should, because it's all pretty much.... it.

I said some of this too btw... cpi no read my posts :(

[cpiasminc]

I said some of this too btw... cpi no read my posts :(
Actually, your post wasn't up when I was typing mine, so I didn't get to see it until after I hit the post button.

[curryking1]

But... but... BUT! :(

Lol! ;)

[Kabbage]

"Another piece of news that has the ps3 fanboys panties in a wad."

Going on your little podcast and basically poking at the people you claimed were ruining the forums is an excellent way to fix your forums.

[frosty]

I could always ban them...

[Sypher]

Can I subscribe to the podcast?

[Lucent Beam]

"Another piece of news that has the ps3 fanboys panties in a wad."

Going on your little podcast and basically poking at the people you claimed were ruining the forums is an excellent way to fix your forums.

:grouphug:
Come on, you at least have to admit it was good imagery.

[frosty]

Can I subscribe to the podcast?

We do have an RSS feed for the site.

[Kabbage]

:grouphug:
Come on, you at least have to admit it was good imagery.

I like a pantie wad as much as the next ... wait... this isn't the madhouse. :shifty:

So is this entire podcast about you regurgitating what has been posted on the forums, and whining about whiners? Because you know.

[frosty]

Pretty much, because some have proven too closed minded to get the point, so we thought we'd further enlighten you.

[Kabbage]

Pretty much, because some have proven too closed minded to get the point, so we thought we'd further enlighten you.So basically reading off the main points of forum posts is going the help?

[frosty]

Yep.

[Kabbage]

Yep.

I doubt it.

[frosty]

Not for those who would rather bitch than listen. Those who run their mouths never listen. those who never listen never learn.

[Kabbage]

Listen, Yes I have been listening and it is still playing as I type this.

So basically stretching three points of an argument into a what, a 45 minute to an Hour or so podcast is going to help?

1) Businesses are out to make money
2) How do you know it isn't going to be good because it is multiplatform.
3) Stop whining.

But hey if you are going to whine about something, it is people whining.

[frosty]

I personally don't give a fuck what you think is good or not, I'm speaking my opinions on a subject that has been nagging the forums for a week now. So, if you don't like it, turn it off and STFU.

[Kabbage]

I personally don't give a fuck what you think is good or not, I'm speaking my opinions on a subject that has been nagging the forums for a week now. So, if you don't like it, turn it off and STFU. Haha. So hostile, and for what me speaking my mind about your podcast?

[frosty]

with an annoying string of posts like that complaining about something so trivial, it's no wonder. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. simple as that.

[Kabbage]

with an annoying string of posts like that complaining about something so trivial, it's no wonder. If you don't like it, don't listen to it. simple as that. So you spending an hour complaining about people complaining isn't trivial?

[frosty]

Not when I actually have good reason to.

[curryking1]

kabbage......

errrmmm......

This is displacement of blame if I've ever seen it. The most abused adolescent tactic ever (not saying you are or anything, or anyone else is) to assume their own point of view is the most objective.

Frosty and cpi and etc etc are completely in the interest of getting the best understanding of everything that's going on, anywhere, whether that's the forum, the dynamics of the consoles and games moving around, etc etc. They show on a daily basis a good to great understanding of what's going on in all of gaming hapnings.

There is a difference between weak analysis of a situation and a good analysis of a situation. There's reasoning, and then there's 'reasoning.' It's why assignments are out of 5 or 10 or 20 instead of 1 or 2.

This is the most impossible thing to explain for me, because this is totally not my forte.

Well actually, I guess something sciency can be applied to this. There are theories, and then when a better theory comes a long, hey, new theory.

Edit - This complaining about complaining thing is the stupidest and most circular defense of the initial complaining. That's... stupid. I want to say something about this, but I don't have time anymore.

[Kabbage]

Not when I actually have good reason to.I would like to know that reason. Is the reason because it spilled over to your forum? So complaining is OK as long as it isn't here?

[LaLiLuLeLo]

Complaining is okay.

Being an idiot who holds back the species with his words is not.
The two are profoundly different. Pay attention to which category you fall in.

DISCLAIMER: WESHOULDALLHAVEHOPEDANDLOOKEDTOWARDSTHEDAYWHENAMAN REALIZESTHESOUNDSEXITINGHISMOUTHAREMOSTLY
COMPLAINTSANDACHANGEOCCURS!!

[frosty]

Look! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's our point soaring over Kabbage's head!

The point is nobody anywhere has the right to complain about this. We spent 45 minutes explaining in detail exactly why.

[cpiasminc]

1) Businesses are out to make money
2) How do you know it isn't going to be good because it is multiplatform.
3) Stop whining.
Yeah, the same points which have been made before.

As opposed to a dozen threads where crybabies with inherently wrong preconceptions (based on a lack of knowledge which they seem to perpetuate by choice) make the same complaints over and over without thinking...

Yeah, I can totally see how this is worse.

Being an idiot who holds back the species with his words is not.
The point is nobody anywhere has the right to complain about this.
To distill that and Lali's point, it means get a clue about something before you complain about it. Those who had a clue didn't complain about all these multiplatform titles to begin with.

[Kabbage]

Yeah your 3 points recycled over and over again flew over my head.

Here is an idea, have each party say their peace on the subject and move on. Wasnt there anything else going on in the gaming world? The best thing you can find to do with a developer is clubbing the same dead horse that should have been put to rest a day after it sprang up.

There wasn't a launch of the PS3 in a major region that had its own share of topics and points of interest?

If you are so tired of a subject why dedicate an entire podcast to it, let it sink and die in the background like it should.

[Applefiend]

At the end of the day nobody knows **** about the industry other than people in it. Industry insiders are the only ones worth listening to.

Everything else is just conversation.

Although just because they have first hand knowledge, doesn't mean they agree.

I shall listen to your podcast tomorrow with interest sirs.

[curryking1]

Ok, kabbage, here's the thing.

Do people like not understanding things the best they can? Is everyone satisfied just thinking exactly what they want instead of making an attempt for a better understanding? That's a problem if people feel that way, I'm very sorry, that's just disgusting and prehistoric and lame.

You know, this is EXACTLY like the 'Allegory of the Cave.'

The cave is filled with fire, shadows, and people. The shadows represent things that appear to be there, but actually aren't. In this case, things that are irrelevant, meaningless, but are overexposed. Everyone who stays in this cave is satisfied with minimal understanding and satisfied with these fake representations of nothingness. Satisfied with this level of understanding, this understanding of their world as they see it.

Everyone who makes an effort to understand everything to the best they possibly can go thru this arduous path from the pits of the cave to reach the sunlight at the entrance of this cave. The path is rocky, rough, and scratches. It takes a long time.

Yet when you reach the end of the cave, you reach the outside, and are 'enlightened' (word used by the actual subject). At first, this light is bright, hard to understand, hard to adapt to, and is a struggle to see in. It's tremendously confusing.

But once this person uses one's will to adapt, this person is able to see more than before, see a new and more realistic and 'enlightened' perspective on some arbitrary component of life or other topic.

So that person decides 'I'll go down and tell everyone about this new stuff I have seen, and what new stuff is up here, and how it can help us, and help us learn more, and understand more of the world.' This knowledge is new and great and can be helpful.

So one goes down. But when one tells everyone about this greater perspective, one is labeled as uncooperative, or blasphemous, or sick, and is 'bludgeoned to death' apparently. And then everyone continues to live in the cave, oblivious to all the things outside of it.

[Kabbage]

If people still don't understand after all of what has gone on, they don't want to understand. Does that mean that everyone else should stay back on the same subject trying to reason with those who don't want to hear it? As it was said in the podcast, the many who have moved on far outweigh the few you are still stuck on this.

I didn't say not talk about it all together, I just don't see why it wasn't addressed and then moved on from. It would be there for people who wanted or needed it and everyone else could move on with other things going on in the gaming industy.

[curryking1]

I think so, yes. Because it's a complete waste of time and space for someone to not try and understand anything, and your brain should be doing more work than that.

What's the point of saying something intelligent when no one is going to listen to it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of sharing ideas? Where does 'moving forward' come from then?

If everyone's fine with a stationary and oblivious state of mind, well.. you suck. Adaptation is one of the premium components that define intelligence. I get bored reading the same thing over and over again, and would rather actually talk to a real person than a head filled with cobwebs.

I don't associate with those people in my daily life, I don't know why I should have to tolerate anything less here. Otherwise this is just one big stupid discussion board.

[Kabbage]

I think so, yes. Because it's a complete waste of time and space for someone to not try and understand anything, and your brain should be doing more work than that.

What's the point of saying something intelligent when no one is going to listen to it? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of sharing ideas? Where does 'moving forward' come from then?

If everyone's fine with a stationary and oblivious state of mind, well.. you suck. Adaptation is one of the premium components that define intelligence. I get bored reading the same thing over and over again, and would rather actually talk to a real person than a head filled with cobwebs.

There is a difference between trying to understand and not wanting to understand. The people who don't want to understand shouldn't have ideas wasted on them. Those who want to try and understand well more power to them and those who do should keep moving forward, similar to the ones who want to keep seeking further enlightenment.

You don't have to tolerate them here either, that is the magic of ignore lists.

[frosty]

Yeah your 3 points recycled over and over again flew over my head.

Here is an idea, have each party say their peace on the subject and move on. Wasnt there anything else going on in the gaming world? The best thing you can find to do with a developer is clubbing the same dead horse that should have been put to rest a day after it sprang up.

There wasn't a launch of the PS3 in a major region that had its own share of topics and points of interest?

If you are so tired of a subject why dedicate an entire podcast to it, let it sink and die in the background like it should.

Because if we did that it would only show it's ugly face again next time an "exclusive" is lost. At least now some of you are a little more informed on the subject and have heard things from an insider's perspective.

As for the other news, trust me, we're going to cover it, but I wanted to wait on more solid info such as sales numbers for a few more countries before I started talking about it.

[curryking1]

But the problem arises when the people who don't try to understand anything are so freaking insistent about the stupidest and most trivial things, and complain about those things. So we complain about them being stupid and trivial and boring and stupid and yadaydaydaydayda.

For every time we don't say anything only increases the possibility the same stupid ***t will happen the next time.

And I quite frankly don't want to jump over all the stupid ***t just so I can get to the posters who actually have some freaking sense in them.

[LaLiLuLeLo]

So...what are you arguing about here? Did you somehow take offense to the podcast? did it hurt your feelings? The podcast was about the hot topic this past week. What's so hard to understand about that? Why is that hard to swallow?

[Kabbage]

Because if we did that it would only show it's ugly face again next time an "exclusive" is lost. At least now some of you are a little more informed on the subject and have heard things from an insider's perspective.

As for the other news, trust me, we're going to cover it, but I wanted to wait on more solid info such as sales numbers for a few more countries before I started talking about it. I don't think one podcast is going to stop that, regardless of what is said or done people will always overreact. I don't see what couldnt have been done with maybe a brisk 15 minute discussion.

I was one of those who gave a knee-jerk response to the news as well, but a little thought drove that out. But I do get where you are coming from, my apologies.

[curryking1]

So what on Earth are you proposing? We know 1 podcast won't stop it. Are you then proposing to do absolutely nothing though?

Nothing gets done in a second or with a snap of a finger, nothing ever does. These are steps hopefully working towards keeping E-mpire sane.

[frosty]

Well, originally we intended to only have a 20 minute podcast on it, but we kept on going until we were almost at 45 minutes. We had a lot to say, lol.

And don't think this was all directed at our forums, but the net and fanboyism as a whole.

[Danji]

Wow! With how many obscenities have been typed in this thread I now have full obligatory rights to say what I would've in the first place! Kabbage, you're being a whiny ass bitch and detracting from the topic. Cliffbo, you are arguing with CPI for god's sake..I hope you realize the problem. Now I'm interested in the podcast. More when I finish it!

[frosty]

It's cool, Kabbage apologized. It was a misunderstanding of intent.

[Kabbage]

So what on Earth are you proposing? We know 1 podcast won't stop it. Are you then proposing to do absolutely nothing though?

Nothing gets done in a second or with a snap of a finger, nothing ever does. These are steps hopefully working towards keeping E-mpire sane. Proposing... well more or less dedicating a segement to the subject and letting it go. I mean does this really need to go on everytime someone overreacts to something going multiplatform.

[cpiasminc]

There wasn't a launch of the PS3 in a major region that had its own share of topics and points of interest?
Yeah... that's so obviously what everyone was talking about. You might have also noticed that the first real statistics of that launch didn't come out until AFTER the podcast was recorded.

let it sink and die in the background like it should.
It didn't need to die... it needed to be killed. Shot, drowned, strangled, decapitated, and lit aflame. Locking threads did nothing, so what was really needed was to shout "You need to either shutup or you need to have us come down, rip out your tongues, sever your fingers and jam corkscrews into your armpits while we bullwhip you until you beg for a quicker death."

If people still don't understand after all of what has gone on, they don't want to understand. Does that mean that everyone else should stay back on the same subject trying to reason with those who don't want to hear it?
Those who don't want to understand shouldn't be part of the conversation. If you choose to be immune to information, then you don't belong where it can be found.

As it was said in the podcast, the many who have moved on far outweigh the few you are still stuck on this.
"Moved on"? The many are the ones for whom it never entered their minds. But they're not the ones who join gaming forums and post and behave like swine. Might as well cast the final pearl before those swine.

[Kabbage]

How was I supposed to know when the Podcast was recorded?

[curryking1]

I dunno, normally where I come from, people who say stupid things need to be corrected.

"Carbon can make 5 bonds!" "Shut the hell up, 4 bonds max dumb***!!"

I'd rather have some sort of action vs. inaction. I mean I could say the exact same thing, do people need to say stupid things for the same stupid topic every stupid time? Must they really say the same dumb things all the time? If they stopped, no one would have to correct them.

What would you do? Just let it slide and let this be tolerated, accepted as a norm? That would mean that E-mpire is perfectly fine with a bunch of idiots making a bunch of idiotic statements out of the blue all the time. I'd hate for that to be the case.

[Diresu]

What would you do? Just let it slide and let this be tolerated, accepted as a norm? That would mean that E-mpire is perfectly fine with a bunch of idiots making a bunch of idiotic statements out of the blue all the time. I'd hate for that to be the case.

In scientific terms we call this "Teh Interwebs"

[Kabbage]

I dunno, normally where I come from, people who say stupid things need to be corrected.

"Carbon can make 5 bonds!" "Shut the hell up, 4 bonds max dumb***!!"

I'd rather have some sort of action vs. inaction. I mean I could say the exact same thing, do people need to say stupid things for the same stupid topic every stupid time? Must they really say the same dumb things all the time? If they stopped, no one would have to correct them.

What would you do? Just let it slide and let this be tolerated, accepted as a norm? That would mean that E-mpire is perfectly fine with a bunch of idiots making a bunch of idiotic statements out of the blue all the time. I'd hate for that to be the case. That is where moderation of the forums should come into play. People who are proving to be a chronic problem should be dealt accordingly.

[Applefiend]

And let's be honest everyone else will be covering the Euro/Aussie launch, and you'll learn nothing new. No loss.

The best gaming podcast out there is the Gamasutra Podcast. They wouldn't think of covering the short term news of the day, they do general issues in gaming and game development, exclusives would be a good one for them, they always have industry people on, it's excellent.

Closer the E-mpire podcast is to that the better.

http://www.gdcradio.net/

(Although sometimes they can be quite dull. Just avoid the 3 hour talks on localisation. :) )

[frosty]

We're trying to move away from the news reporting and discussion and more towards discussion of issues in the gaming industry. We will still talk about the latest news of course, but we're trying not to make it like a news broadcast.

[cliffbo]

"Another piece of news that has the ps3 fanboys panties in a wad."

Going on your little podcast and basically poking at the people you claimed were ruining the forums is an excellent way to fix your forums.

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa, you noticed that too! 98% of that podcast was about what? the very thing threads have been closed for. so we, the common forum user, are not worthy or intelligent enough to talk about it, but the mods are, which is why i picked up on the only other subject that money is the only motive and we the forum users are stupid in even considering otherwise

[cliffbo]

Pretty much, because some have proven too closed minded to get the point, so we thought we'd further enlighten you.

close minded is, thinking only of a petition and not being able to identify a potential problem and not being able to discuss those ramifications, without simply saying 'the petition is stupid'

so what is the point Frosty? because i see it this way:

1: we could discuss how badly written the petition was
2: we could discuss what effect the petition could have
3: we could discuss whether petitions of this type have an effect
4: we could discuss whether its an indication of a growing trend
5: we could discuss what could happen to third party if it becomes a trend.
6: we could discuss whether other's will follow with petitions of their own.
7: or we could just say 'the petition is stupid'

now which line of enquiry would lead to intelligent conversation?

and please don't even think you can come close to enlightening me

[cliffbo]

Look! It's a bird! It's a plane! It's our point soaring over Kabbage's head!

The point is nobody anywhere has the right to complain about this. We spent 45 minutes explaining in detail exactly why.

i actually agree with Kabbage... sorry here Frosty you see i can actually lock horns with somebody without disliking them. i think the point was lost by yourselves. there was a great opportunity to discuss this subject properly but instead you simply said 'the petition is stupid' for about 45 minutes. at one point i thought you may evolve the discussion, when the young lady pointed out that it was all over the net and then someone else said something about 'it could effect the industry' but then it was lost in the 'the petition is stupid' argument again LOL

[cliffbo]

Wow! With how many obscenities have been typed in this thread I now have full obligatory rights to say what I would've in the first place! Kabbage, you're being a whiny ass bitch and detracting from the topic. Cliffbo, you are arguing with CPI for god's sake..I hope you realize the problem. Now I'm interested in the podcast. More when I finish it!

why should i worry about arguing with CPI, i respect hi knowledge but i don't always agree with it. to think that money motivates alone is incredibly naive and that was my point. unfortunately as is the case 99% of the time, everyone just jumped on the 'saying the obvious' bandwagon because it draws the easiest applause. but i'm left thinking:

'but that goes without question, now can we actually discuss my first post properly and read it carefully this time'

[cliffbo]

Everyone who makes an effort to understand everything to the best they possibly can go thru this arduous path from the pits of the cave to reach the sunlight at the entrance of this cave. The path is rocky, rough, and scratches. It takes a long time.

Yet when you reach the end of the cave, you reach the outside, and are 'enlightened' (word used by the actual subject). At first, this light is bright, hard to understand, hard to adapt to, and is a struggle to see in. It's tremendously confusing.

so what effect could a badly written petition by a bunch of fanboys have on the industry as a whole and what are the ramifications IF this becomes a trend ;)

Q: what is knowledge?
A: knowledge is a collection of facts that are drawn upon to form an opinion or answer a question. ROM

Q: what is intelligence?
A: intelligence is gleaning information from a variety of resources and distilling it into something that's beyond knowledge. RAM

[nelposto]

to think that money motivates alone is incredibly naive and that was my point.

Nobody but nobody (and certainly not cpi) is arguing that. Money is not only a motivator, but one of the key enablers. The fact is, finance is one of the major resources required to make a project such as game development viable.

That is what cpi and the others are saying. It doesn't matter what motivates you to make a game if you don't have the resources (financial or otherwise) to complete it.

[frosty]

I'm not even going to respond to those posts other than to say that we only briefly mentioned the petition, which shows you obviously didn't pay much attention to what we were saying.

[cliffbo]

Nobody but nobody (and certainly not cpi) is arguing that. Money is not only a motivator, but one of the key enablers. The fact is, finance is one of the major resources required to make a project such as game development viable.

That is what cpi and the others are saying. It doesn't matter what motivates you to make a game if you don't have the resources (financial or otherwise) to complete it.

so basically everyones agreeing with but for some reason they feel it necessary to argue that they are agreeing with me? i hate it when people tell me things i take for granted, i f*****g hate being patronised. the point was that the podcast made it sound like that was THE only reason. now because this silly repeating of obvious facts has gone on so long i will get either two responses. 'I can't agree, although there are devs that do it for love' dah! or 'i don't see your point then' dah! oh well back to posting little offhand comments for a while, it doesn't tax the brain nearly as much as discussing something in an intelligent manner.

[Leedogg]

frosty, was that you that said in the podcast

"Quit complaining, and start playing the games."

Edit: If it is, I just need to know so I can give credit. Cause I am going to put it in my signature.

[cliffbo]

I'm not even going to respond to those posts other than to say that we only briefly mentioned the petition, which shows you obviously didn't pay much attention to what we were saying.

but the petition is a response to lots of people moaning about exclusives! its how conversation evolves... conversation isn't a sequence of disconnected views seen in isolation, it is a sequence of connected thoughts that evolve with every new piece of information received.

oh and i agreed with nearly everything that was said on the podcast. i just thought a/ why is it that they can discuss it and not us and b/ money isn't the only thing that makes games

this subject will emerge again on the net and i will be posting it.

[Lucent Beam]

Ok, this thread is just getting silly, so I'll go back and respond to the first post..


putting aside 98% of the podcast, because of a fear of this thread getting locked, i found the statements about all developers only in it for the money very interesting. i'm not naive in the least and i have no doubt that most of the developers are in it for the money, but there is a distinction to be made here, surely.

I would say, yes, most developers are NOT in it for the money.
But, in reference to something like DMC4, Capcom is not a developer. It is a publisher.

are we saying that David Jaffe was in it for the money and the money only when he created GOW? i'm sure i've heard him say time and time again that he loves games and thats what motivates him the most when it comes to developing.

You are 100% correct. I'm sure even if David Jaffe didn't have Sony publishing his games, he would still want to make God of War.. but probably couldn't be able to without the financial resources Sony provided him.

Are we also saying that Hideo Kojima has nothing more than money as an inspiration for his MGS games? i think this generalisation is a bit misleading and doesn't give credit where dredit is due.

My response is the same. Kojima is passion and talented, but without money fueling his games, they wouldn't exist as they do.

yes money is important, but the good devs are more focussed on great gameplay and great realisation of it (initially) than in making huge profits. that's not naive. its the same as any other art form. does an artist paint a picture in the hope that it sells for vast amounts of money or has he simply put all of his heart and soul into creating something that he loved. money is a bi-product of many hours of creativity, not a motive in itself.

I do agree that money is not 'a motive'. Most developer ARE in it for good gameplay and the fun of working on a game. But, again, developers != publishers. A publisher isn't making any games. They only deal with money.

those devs that are in it for the money, make very little effort in improving their games and instead opt for slight upgrades in order to milk a franchise.

good games are made by devs that love their job. bad games are made by jaded devs that have business models.

And I completely agree. Good devs lvoe their job and are in it for passion. Bad devs see it as "just another job".
But consider this.. Developers are given projects like DMC4 by their publisher. Do you think, for example, Treyarch really wanted to develop Call of Duty 3 in a 10 month game cycle? No. Activision forced them too. For all we know, the development team on DMC4 might be pissed that they have to make it multiconsole.. but will Capcom as a publisher let that out in the open? No way.
I really do think it's important to mentally seperate publisher and developer to see how business and art are interacting on both ends.

[cliffbo]

Ok, this thread is just getting silly, so I'll go back and respond to the first post..




I would say, yes, most developers are NOT in it for the money.
But, in reference to something like DMC4, Capcom is not a developer. It is a publisher.



You are 100% correct. I'm sure even if David Jaffe didn't have Sony publishing his games, he would still want to make God of War.. but probably couldn't be able to without the financial resources Sony provided him.



My response is the same. Kojima is passion and talented, but without money fueling his games, they wouldn't exist as they do.



I do agree that money is not 'a motive'. Most developer ARE in it for good gameplay and the fun of working on a game. But, again, developers != publishers. A publisher isn't making any games. They only deal with money.



And I completely agree. Good devs lvoe their job and are in it for passion. Bad devs see it as "just another job".
But consider this.. Developers are given projects like DMC4 by their publisher. Do you think, for example, Treyarch really wanted to develop Call of Duty 3 in a 10 month game cycle? No. Activision forced them too. For all we know, the development team on DMC4 might be pissed that they have to make it multiconsole.. but will Capcom as a publisher let that out in the open? No way.
I really do think it's important to mentally seperate publisher and developer to see how business and art are interacting on both ends.

thank you, you bringer of loveliness. at last a straight answer :pinky:


I really do think it's important to mentally seperate publisher and developer to see how business and art are interacting on both ends.

now there's an interesting topic for discussion

[nelposto]

so basically everyones agreeing with but for some reason they feel it necessary to argue that they are agreeing with me?

Sorry, no, this is not it.

Your OP claims that it is naive to assume that developers are only in it for money.

THIS IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING.

It doesn't matter whether Jaffe does it because he loves it or beacuse he hates it. The project can not live without funding, and (of course), from the sponsor's point of view, it would be nice for a project to be profitable. You know, create a little bit of return on investment.

The distinction to be made is not between which developers are in it for the money and which developers are in it for the love. The distinction to be made is between the developers themselves and the publishers etc. that sponsor the development project. Who cares what the developers are in it for? The project costs money and sponsors want a return. They are not the ones developing the games - they are the ones funding the development and I dare say that that gives them a good amount of power over the project.

.. and before I post, I see Lucent has brought up the same thing.

i f*****g hate being patronised.

... followed sentences later by:

oh well back to posting little offhand comments for a while, it doesn't tax the brain nearly as much as discussing something in an intelligent manner.

Might I also mention that this dislike for patronisation is coming from the one who has recently taken to ending his posts with a ;) and some comment that suggests he is the only one of us all to understand this / enjoy intelligent conversation / provide real insight / see the big picture / whatever.

Without intention to offend, I think you need to take a better look at what people are saying!

[cliffbo]

Sorry, no, this is not it.

Your OP claims that it is naive to assume that developers are only in it for money.

THIS IS NOT WHAT PEOPLE ARE SAYING.

It doesn't matter whether Jaffe does it because he loves it or beacuse he hates it. The project can not live without funding, and (of course), from the sponsor's point of view, it would be nice for a project to be profitable. You know, create a little bit of return on investment.

The distinction to be made is not between which developers are in it for the money and which developers are in it for the love. The distinction to be made is between the developers themselves and the publishers etc. that sponsor the development project. Who cares what the developers are in it for? The project costs money and sponsors want a return. They are not the ones developing the games - they are the ones funding the development and I dare say that that gives them a good amount of power over the project.

.. and before I post, I see Lucent has brought up the same thing.



... followed sentences later by:



Might I also mention that this dislike for patronisation is coming from the one who has recently taken to ending his posts with a ;) and some comment that suggests he is the only one of us all to understand this / enjoy intelligent conversation / provide real insight / see the big picture / whatever.

Without intention to offend, I think you need to take a better look at what people are saying!

there are many intelligent posters on this forum and i regularly end a post with ;) i've done it for TWO years.

It doesn't matter whether Jaffe does it because he loves it or beacuse he hates it. The project can not live without funding, and (of course), from the sponsor's point of view, it would be nice for a project to be profitable. You know, create a little bit of return on investment.

why doesn't it matter? that's the crux of my post. this thread is about whether games are made ONLY for money and yet, like i've said, you seem to agree with me in that statement but still want to argue i am wrong! i'm confused

[cpiasminc]

so basically everyones agreeing with but for some reason they feel it necessary to argue that they are agreeing with me?
Agreeing with which part? The "love" of which you speak is meaningless. But you keep on confusing who's who in the scheme of the industry. Even in this very post you keep using the word "devs" as if it's rare for a *developer* to be in it for the games. The people who care may be the ones making the game, but they aren't necessarily the ones making the decisions. Your understanding of the industry is ill-equipped.

Secondly, the point we disagree with in general (and not specifically with you) is the attitude taken towards 3rd party games simply because they're not exclusive or because we've seen the likes of EA's sports titles, or that boycotting something will actually solve things. That's the point where I don't think you and others are being very naive.

the point was that the podcast made it sound like that was THE only reason.
That is indeed the only reason companies fund a project. Developers have nothing to do with it.

[cliffbo]

Agreeing with which part? The "love" of which you speak is meaningless. But you keep on confusing who's who in the scheme of the industry. Even in this very post you keep using the word "devs" as if it's rare for a *developer* to be in it for the games. The people who care may be the ones making the game, but they aren't necessarily the ones making the decisions. Your understanding of the industry is ill-equipped.

oh brother... of course i know that developers are not the only people involved in the production of a game. now your saying that i'm suggesting that only a handful of devs do it for money, which obviously suggest that you believe that most devs do it for love and not money. so basically when i say that games are not all about money, your agreeing with me. i could start another thread titled: are publishers stifling the talents of creative and imaginative developers. but that is a separate issue.

[nelposto]

i could start another thread titled: are publishers stifling the talents of creative and imaginative developers. but that is a separate issue.

Great that we made it here.

Ignoring the fact that publishers actually enable the use of talent of creative/imaginative developers (they provide the budgets to begin with!), and assuming full agreeance on the above, if we say that it is a seperate issue, then what is the issue being dealt with in this thread?

Just to clarify, the original post argued that the podcast's comments regarding money were that all developers care about is money. Since we have now agreed that the podcast was referring to publishers/sponsors, and not developers, is it not you that has confused the issue? The idea that money is not the only motivator for a proffessional in any field is hardly groundbreaking..

[cliffbo]

Great that we made it here.

Ignoring the fact that publishers actually enable the use of talent of creative/imaginative developers (they provide the budgets to begin with!), and assuming full agreeance on the above, if we say that it is a seperate issue, then what is the issue being dealt with in this thread?

Just to clarify, the original post argued that the podcast's comments regarding money were that all developers care about is money. Since we have now agreed that the podcast was referring to publishers/sponsors, and not developers, is it not you that has confused the issue? The idea that money is not the only motivator for a proffessional in any field is hardly groundbreaking..

you conveniently missed this off that quote:

i could start another thread titled: are publishers stifling the talents of creative and imaginative developers. but that is a separate issue.

and the way that podcast came over was suggesting that money is the motivation carte blank. i just thought it would make an intereting discussion but obviously not

money is a bi-product of many hours of creativity, not a motive in itself.

[nelposto]

you conveniently missed this off that quote:

Nope.

if we say that it is a seperate issue,


.. as you suggested one post prior ..

then what is the issue being dealt with in this thread?

[cliffbo]

putting aside 98% of the podcast, because of a fear of this thread getting locked, i found the statements about all whole industry only in it for the money very interesting. i'm not naive in the least and i have no doubt that most of the developers are in it for the money, but there is a distinction to be made here, surely.

are we saying that David Jaffe was in it for the money and the money only when he created GOW? i'm sure i've heard him say time and time again that he loves games and thats what motivates him the most when it comes to developing.

Are we also saying that Hideo Kojima has nothing more than money as an inspiration for his MGS games? i think this generalisation is a bit misleading and doesn't give credit where dredit is due.

yes money is important, but the good devs are more focussed on great gameplay and great realisation of it (initially) than in making huge profits. that's not naive. its the same as any other art form. does an artist paint a picture in the hope that it sells for vast amounts of money or has he simply put all of his heart and soul into creating something that he loved. money is a bi-product of many hours of creativity, not a motive in itself.

those devs that are in it for the money, make very little effort in improving their games and instead opt for slight upgrades in order to milk a franchise.

good games are made by devs that love their job. bad games are made by jaded devs that have business models.

okay i've changed devs to industry ;)

okay, ive read through it and perhaps i could have worded it better but i do think i'm being pulled up on some pretty pedantic points

making friends and influencing people LOLLOLOL...

[cliffbo]

Nope.



.. as you suggested one post prior ..

sorry, thought you had... my bad as forum users say ;)

[cpiasminc]

why doesn't it matter? that's the crux of my post. this thread is about whether games are made ONLY for money and yet, like i've said, you seem to agree with me in that statement but still want to argue i am wrong! i'm confused
Because your understanding of the point of the podcast is way off. I know the version that was up originally was not the full discussion, but the last few minutes were a bit more generic on fanboyism, and I doubt you'd have anything to argue about that.

and the way that podcast came over was suggesting that money is the motivation carte blank.
Perhaps I should clarify that it is the motivation for all games that make it to the market... But the question of "for whom" is where we argue the wrongness of your notions. You keep bringing up Kojima and Jaffe... well, fine... but who do they get paid by? Konami and Sony. And for them, yeah, money is the core of it all. You act as if we're putting Kojima in the same boat as EA Sports.

And also, while a Ubisoft and an SCEA are in the same boat in the respect of being money-minded, that doesn't mean that SCEA is necessarily going about it the same way or that they're equally "evil", as many would like to put it.

And let me ask you... let's say you, Cliff, are a billionaire... and you, individually are moved by the passion of some game designer named Amano Tatsunosuke (I just made up a random Japanese name)... will you willingly throw down $30 million to fund his project simply on that? And if you would, do you think just anybody else would have done the same in your shoes?

[cliffbo]

i heard the podcast. thought the idea of money being a motive for making games was interesting. posted this thread and for some reason posters seem to think i'm angry with the podcast... why. i don't agree with everything it had to say, but most of it was of interest to me. but to be honest that money statement was the only thing from that podcast i could discuss because the issue of the petition was overdone. i know that the industry is driven by cash and that Sony want money like any other company, but my question revolves around whether its only money that gets a game made and that perhaps some developers are not motivated by it.

[cpiasminc]

i heard the podcast. thought the idea of money being a motive for making games was interesting. posted this thread and for some reason posters seem to think i'm angry with the podcast... why. i don't agree with everything it had to say, but most of it was of interest to me.
Your first few dozen posts in the thread certainly didn't come off that way.

but to be honest that money statement was the only thing from that podcast i could discuss because the issue of the petition was overdone. i know that the industry is driven by cash and that Sony want money like any other company, but my question revolves around whether its only money that gets a game made and that perhaps some developers are not motivated by it.
"Gets a game made?" -- yes.
"Motivates a developer?" -- no.
"Motivates the company behind the developer?" -- yes.
"Developers want to make money?" -- yes.
"Developers want money more than they want to make a great game?" -- no.
"Developers want money SO THAT they can make a great game?" -- yes.

I mean, I look at my level of *professional* experience as a programmer, and in another industry, I'd probably be making about a 70% higher salary... you think I'd do that? Or any other game programmer in my shoes? I can't think of any game programmer who'd do that. However, I also don't think I could name one who'd do it for free, either. We're generally comfortable getting paid enough to live on (and I still live on an average of about $20 a day for all expenses except rent). And it's no different for artists or designers.

You look at what small 3rd parties go through. They usually have to bid below cost, fund partially out of pocket or take on loans, and work on an accelerated (and unreasonable) schedule in order to get their projects picked up by a publisher... and just hope they have a hit that will sell enough to make back their losses. The thing is, in this stage, these small developers are definitely more concerned with money than you might think -- a hit on a small scale means they can afford to go up to larger budget (and more importantly, they have a track record showing success, which will make publishers take notice) and flesh out a grander vision the next time around.

The "always" part of the idea that money drives game development is factual as long as you know who you're talking about and to what end. I'm not about to tell you that it's a favorable or pretty picture, but that doesn't make it less true.

[cliffbo]

Your first few dozen posts in the thread certainly didn't come off that way.


"Gets a game made?" -- yes.
"Motivates a developer?" -- no.
"Motivates the company behind the developer?" -- yes.
"Developers want to make money?" -- yes.
"Developers want money more than they want to make a great game?" -- no.
"Developers want money SO THAT they can make a great game?" -- yes.

I mean, I look at my level of *professional* experience as a programmer, and in another industry, I'd probably be making about a 70% higher salary... you think I'd do that? Or any other game programmer in my shoes? I can't think of any game programmer who'd do that. However, I also don't think I could name one who'd do it for free, either. We're generally comfortable getting paid enough to live on (and I still live on an average of about $20 a day for all expenses except rent). And it's no different for artists or designers.

You look at what small 3rd parties go through. They usually have to bid below cost, fund partially out of pocket or take on loans, and work on an accelerated (and unreasonable) schedule in order to get their projects picked up by a publisher... and just hope they have a hit that will sell enough to make back their losses. The thing is, in this stage, these small developers are definitely more concerned with money than you might think -- a hit on a small scale means they can afford to go up to larger budget (and more importantly, they have a track record showing success, which will make publishers take notice) and flesh out a grander vision the next time around.

The "always" part of the idea that money drives game development is factual as long as you know who you're talking about and to what end. I'm not about to tell you that it's a favorable or pretty picture, but that doesn't make it less true.

i agree with every word of that, it makes perfect sense. there was no suggestion in it that i had a limited understanding of the industry, which is gracious because i have got a limited understanding compared to yourself. thanks :thumbl: