Hey Peter, I have just read it a bit earlier today. I may not be working in the industry yet but I found myself in perfect agreement with your article as I held quite similar views for a little while.
I really liked the bit about giving companies some sort of personal identity and I've been a huge fan of the idea ever since I heard the Jason Rubin's Dice 2004 speech. I've wrote a bit rushed post a while ago that outlines my thoughts on the topic. I think that this approach could make new IP's more marketable as individuals are more willing to take risks. I've been worried however that not many people would be willing to take on a task on being a "frontman" as potential failures could ruin their careers. However, when combined with the idea of making a pilot game, a potential failure wouldn't be so damaging. Instead, taking risks would remain a viable option for those seeking to elevate their careers.
On the other hand, Tadgh Kelly wrote an article that proposes something completely different, a single-franchise model. However, I am unsure whether his idea would work in the long term - churning out sequels might be profitable for a while, but eventually people who are not a core part of the IP's fanbase will lose their interest. Furthermore, his idea doesn't seem to encourage creativity hence why I might be a bit biased against it.
Sounds like a pretty expensive process to gauge interest.
I could see it working for some games though, like games where some clever game mechanic is the selling point.
But this is all something the game industry really needs to look into. Video games have become so Hollywood and in the coming generations they are only going to cost more to make.
Awesome read, you didn't disappoint and you're right, that did shake up my perceptions of the industry and how it can move and grow. I've been pretty doom and gloom about the future but I think the things you outlined are pretty easy to switch over to, unlike other calls for radical overhaul and pie in the sky theories with little substance.
The pilot program is something my company has been doing recently and I wasn't even looking at it that way. It's been working for us so far. This is after we split off another full team and had them go balls to the walls trying to establish another series and you're right it costs too much, leads to bloat and the series made it to a 3rd game before they pulled the plug and put in a system like the pilot program. Which has given us amazing feedback and allowed us to take greater risks. Really that's what it comes down to, minimizing the risk of the funds invested
I agree, the pilot idea is probably the best and safest way of establishing a genuine fan base without the risk of a full blown production. Too many times Ive been psyched up over games through forced advertising and big talk, only to be let down by either the demo or the actual end product. This only results in a no purchase from me and others, and a huge loss for them. Games are not a passive media, and I feel they have to be played to be understood, even if its a direct sequel.
The funny thing, maybe ironic or even tragic, is that this is the way that successful games have been.
Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans has a ridiculously lower footprint than WoW. And it's also a very simple game that does one thing pretty well. The first warcraft was basically the pilot for that entire franchise. And they had others. Rock N' Roll racing was awesome too. But as a pilot maybe it didn't prove all that worthy to be made into a franchise compared to warcraft.
CCP's EVE also comes to mind. Starting small and expanding. Unlike other games where they pour hundreds of millions into something fresh and hope it does well.
Really great read! Over the last few years the indie scene has really come into its own, and there is alot more respect for smaller, more focused and original titles and I've often thought, as I found new respect for indie microstudios, that it's something AAA publishers can learn from.
I also loved your note about not hiding behind a company's name. Not just because it's an important way to connect with fanbases, but also because it echoes what Jason Rubin has preached about giving credit to the talent that creates games.
So yeah, spot on! A very positive criticism of the industry that got me thinking!
The main problem I've had dealing with publishers though, is they can't tell the difference between Art Direction, and a Game Mechanic.
To the ones I've had to personally deal with, a gun that shoots people, and a popcorn gun that shoots rodents are 2 completely different mechanics.
And they would very gladly greenlight an INNOVATIVE new gameplay mechanic, where you're shooting popcorn, rather than shooting bullets.
Heck, most publishers I've dealt with don't even care about greybox prototype levels that are fun. They would rather play fully art-ed levels that are boring.
:S
Am I the only one that's had these types of meetings??
I have little question here , anyone know any example of smaller game that become a Hit, and then turn into AAA?
The guys who made scribblenauts (5 cell?) are following this very path. I forget the name of their new game but they say it's the game they've always wanted to make and very different than the other games they have released.
Hybrid. I'm not sure that's a great example, given that it doesn't appear to be utilising any of the unique aspects of Scribblenauts and Drawn to Life and on first glance appears to be a generic, post-apocalyptic 3rd person shooter.
As stated already, awesome read, truthful and to the point with no agenda.
I'm new to game design myself, but my main issue with this article is it sounds like it assumes great games are more an accident than we give good design teams credit for.
Lemme use the already referenced example, Minecraft. Was it the product of 10 million monkeys pounding on a keyboard? An inevitable gem from the millions of random game developers out there? Not at all, in fact minecraft drew a lot of inspiration from a game that was NOT a massive success: Stranded.
The difference between a decent little game with a small audience and mega hit is pretty slight. Look at DOTA, this game came from a system very similar to the one you described, but instead of being developed from within the company it was created by the user base. Many iterations of hero arenas existed for years dating back to starcraft, but it wasn't until the unique item combination system of DOTA was introduced that a unique hero arena really started taking off. Blizzard had struggled trying to create a truly groundbreaking hero/ RTS system and warcraft III itself was debatabley overshadowed by this mod.
So in a sense yes, the shotgun effect can spawn a great new game, but the point here is that there is no IP behind DOTA or Minecraft. There's no engrossing storyline or fancy graphics, in fact the things that made minecraft and DOTA the mega hits that they are are so against the corporate grain that i would go so far as to say they are polar opposites. A large company that relies so much on a large team for fancy graphics, cutscenes, and story wouldn't be able to put out or concept a game like DOTA or minecraft at no point in their development cycle do they require any of these things and the thought that either title requires a large studio to produce changes the scope and development of the game entirely. The day a small team creates the next "dota" or "Minecraft" at EA those in charge understand what little resources is required for a truly groundbreaking game that can advertise itself is the day that 90% of the studio is let go.
There are only a few very deliberate gameplay ideas that set these games apart from hundreds of others like it. The point is a great new game isn't born out of teams of people developing lots of radically different things, it comes from 1 or 2 really great, well executed gameplay decisions.
This is the most important part and where i see your idea of creating many small games on the cheap to later blossom as having the most merrit. What made minecraft and dota work and catch fire is people could try them out for free to begin with. No one wants to pay for something they haven't experienced and this is why new IP's often crash and burn before they take off. If anyone here takes a moment to think about when they first played a new genera of game, or a new IP, i think you'd realize that it was often at a friends house, or you borrowing it, or because someone highly recommended it.
I'll spew one last bit of nonsense then call it a night. Back in the day Nintendo was top dog, had the best games, and they had an iron fist on the media relating to their games: Nintendo Power. They controlled not only what games came out on their console, but they also controlled how much media attention they got among their player base. In this environment, great gameplay really meant something, IP was inconsequential. A brand new IP like battletoads would come out and be ALL OVER the magazine, and there was no hesitation from owners to try brand new IP, because there was a lot of trust between how much air time a game got, and how good the game was. No marketing team was being payed millions of dollars to figure out how to shove bad games down kids throats. In the long run this payed off big time for Nintendo, alowing them to bring gaming literally out of the hole atari dug in the Nevada desert.
So why don't gamers play new IP's today? Because of marketing, because of the lies and "viral marketing". The fact that Viral marketing exists is the proof that marketing doesn't work any more. That the only way to make players try a game was to have them think they weren't being asked by marketing to play it. Put out a good game and make it free? Now that's some faith in the gameplay and a way to spread the word. Riot games, makers of the free game "league of legends" (one of several companies that have turned massive profits off of a DOTA clone) just received millions in investment and are expanding rapidly with a discerning eye for their human capital.
If large companies want to reverse the damage, and be able to actually sell a new innovative IP, they're going to have to give it away for free for a while, building back some trust with the consumer, innovative payment plans can be set up to turn a profit down the road once the consumer is comfortable with the IP.
Actually, what's interesting with minecraft is that it follows the mainstream receipt more closely than you'd want to think.
The big difference between stranded, dwarf fortress and minecraft is a few super big things, since without even arguing we can say that dwarf fortress was and still is the deeper and more feature-filled game.
There has been a ton of minecraft style games around before minecraft, all with varying features, often much more complex than minecraft, some with infinite worlds.
But minecraft streamlined this genre, added multiplayer, made it super accessible.
And that is the fun part: the most successful indie games are the ones that dare experiment, but still follows the big league methods of streamlining and "dumbing down"
Peter, I find this idea to be brilliant. I've shared it with my small up-and-coming studio. We've been trying to think of how we wanted to handle things and I've sent them your article. Between making games and expanding on them, I think the pilot paradigm would work excellent for us. One of my pals from our studio's going to be going to GDC as well, so I'll try to swing him your way.
I have little question here , anyone know any example of smaller game that become a Hit, and then turn into AAA?
First thing that comes to mind would be Prince of Persia. Made for the Apple II in 1989. Appeared again with it's sequel in 93. Then it hit the console generation in 03 on the PS2 and Xbox.
Hybrid. I'm not sure that's a great example, given that it doesn't appear to be utilising any of the unique aspects of Scribblenauts and Drawn to Life and on first glance appears to be a generic, post-apocalyptic 3rd person shooter.
Oh wow, really? I thought they would stick to the same type of game and where just going to get off the DS and expand things. Well... that's risky.
I guess depending on how they work it, they can keep the scribblenauts/drawn to life thing going and fall back on it if needed? It kind of falls into the idea that once you grow a project to maturity you cycle the vets to new ventures?
But it seems like instead of sticking to the pilot program idea they're swinging for the fences... risky... very risky, especially given the over saturation of genre they're going for. Best of luck to them!
I would not call Minecraft a AAA title and I don't think games like Minecraft, DotA or Dwarf Fortress are really what the article is aimed at. I read it as being more for big money publishers like EA, Activision etc, Who reuse IP's because it is two dangerous to give a multi million budgets to a new IP.
It would be hard to learn from Minecrafts success either, because the game was developed very organically, expanding as it gained success, rather than having a solid plan to push out a pilot and react accordingly.
there is also a newer more effective way(in my thoughts) which is open development. You build your IP by allowing your target audience watch your progress in the creation and also be your QA team aswell by allowing the pre-purchase and get access to alpha,beta and final builds. So its like they part of the dev team. Much like what "Overgrowth" and NS2 is doing now but more indepth.
This is getting more popular in the indie scene (the devs of interstellar marines are using a very similar approach) but I don't see it becoming a widespread trend - It's alot more risky for the devlopers, harder to get it to work with publishers, and more than anything, I don't see people buying into it for long. This might come from the part of me that ordered the special edition of Natural Selection 2 nearly two years ago, but if more devs pick this route, eventually we will see a project crash with thousands of supporters left in a lurch with a buggy/unplayable game / no game at all, and this will discourage others from doing the same thing.
This seems to reflect Luke Warm Medias previous incarnations adventures that led to Primal Carnage. Or am I confusing another set of developers? Didn't they say they couldn't get enough to survive with the smaller "test" games, and thus went with the best selling one of the short games to make a full version (Primal Carnage)?
I have just realized that noone has even mentioned the most famous example of a pilot game: Portal.
It's funny that it took me so long to realize that Portal fits the bill perfectly; now that I think of it Orange Box's model actually makes sense. Bundling a short game representing a new IP with a more popular title seems like a good way to give it some exposure.
edit:
Regarding Minecraft; I don't think it's a good example at all. It's a rather odd case because one of the reasons why the game became so insanely popular is because for a while it used to be a favourite title of 4Channers and Goons. And we all know what happens when something becomes popular in the rotten holes of the internet that 4chan and Something Awful are.
I'm feeling a bit stupid since everyone seems to know, but what does IP stand for? Considering the context, we're not talking about introducing a new internet protocol, are we?
Replies
I really liked the bit about giving companies some sort of personal identity and I've been a huge fan of the idea ever since I heard the Jason Rubin's Dice 2004 speech. I've wrote a bit rushed post a while ago that outlines my thoughts on the topic. I think that this approach could make new IP's more marketable as individuals are more willing to take risks. I've been worried however that not many people would be willing to take on a task on being a "frontman" as potential failures could ruin their careers. However, when combined with the idea of making a pilot game, a potential failure wouldn't be so damaging. Instead, taking risks would remain a viable option for those seeking to elevate their careers.
On the other hand, Tadgh Kelly wrote an article that proposes something completely different, a single-franchise model. However, I am unsure whether his idea would work in the long term - churning out sequels might be profitable for a while, but eventually people who are not a core part of the IP's fanbase will lose their interest. Furthermore, his idea doesn't seem to encourage creativity hence why I might be a bit biased against it.
feels like future to me.
I could see it working for some games though, like games where some clever game mechanic is the selling point.
But this is all something the game industry really needs to look into. Video games have become so Hollywood and in the coming generations they are only going to cost more to make.
The pilot program is something my company has been doing recently and I wasn't even looking at it that way. It's been working for us so far. This is after we split off another full team and had them go balls to the walls trying to establish another series and you're right it costs too much, leads to bloat and the series made it to a 3rd game before they pulled the plug and put in a system like the pilot program. Which has given us amazing feedback and allowed us to take greater risks. Really that's what it comes down to, minimizing the risk of the funds invested
Warcraft: Orcs vs Humans has a ridiculously lower footprint than WoW. And it's also a very simple game that does one thing pretty well. The first warcraft was basically the pilot for that entire franchise. And they had others. Rock N' Roll racing was awesome too. But as a pilot maybe it didn't prove all that worthy to be made into a franchise compared to warcraft.
CCP's EVE also comes to mind. Starting small and expanding. Unlike other games where they pour hundreds of millions into something fresh and hope it does well.
I also loved your note about not hiding behind a company's name. Not just because it's an important way to connect with fanbases, but also because it echoes what Jason Rubin has preached about giving credit to the talent that creates games.
So yeah, spot on! A very positive criticism of the industry that got me thinking!
The main problem I've had dealing with publishers though, is they can't tell the difference between Art Direction, and a Game Mechanic.
To the ones I've had to personally deal with, a gun that shoots people, and a popcorn gun that shoots rodents are 2 completely different mechanics.
And they would very gladly greenlight an INNOVATIVE new gameplay mechanic, where you're shooting popcorn, rather than shooting bullets.
Heck, most publishers I've dealt with don't even care about greybox prototype levels that are fun. They would rather play fully art-ed levels that are boring.
:S
Am I the only one that's had these types of meetings??
I have little question here , anyone know any example of smaller game that become a Hit, and then turn into AAA?
minecraft is a perfect example
The guys who made scribblenauts (5 cell?) are following this very path. I forget the name of their new game but they say it's the game they've always wanted to make and very different than the other games they have released.
I'm new to game design myself, but my main issue with this article is it sounds like it assumes great games are more an accident than we give good design teams credit for.
Lemme use the already referenced example, Minecraft. Was it the product of 10 million monkeys pounding on a keyboard? An inevitable gem from the millions of random game developers out there? Not at all, in fact minecraft drew a lot of inspiration from a game that was NOT a massive success: Stranded.
[ame]
The difference between a decent little game with a small audience and mega hit is pretty slight. Look at DOTA, this game came from a system very similar to the one you described, but instead of being developed from within the company it was created by the user base. Many iterations of hero arenas existed for years dating back to starcraft, but it wasn't until the unique item combination system of DOTA was introduced that a unique hero arena really started taking off. Blizzard had struggled trying to create a truly groundbreaking hero/ RTS system and warcraft III itself was debatabley overshadowed by this mod.
So in a sense yes, the shotgun effect can spawn a great new game, but the point here is that there is no IP behind DOTA or Minecraft. There's no engrossing storyline or fancy graphics, in fact the things that made minecraft and DOTA the mega hits that they are are so against the corporate grain that i would go so far as to say they are polar opposites. A large company that relies so much on a large team for fancy graphics, cutscenes, and story wouldn't be able to put out or concept a game like DOTA or minecraft at no point in their development cycle do they require any of these things and the thought that either title requires a large studio to produce changes the scope and development of the game entirely. The day a small team creates the next "dota" or "Minecraft" at EA those in charge understand what little resources is required for a truly groundbreaking game that can advertise itself is the day that 90% of the studio is let go.
There are only a few very deliberate gameplay ideas that set these games apart from hundreds of others like it. The point is a great new game isn't born out of teams of people developing lots of radically different things, it comes from 1 or 2 really great, well executed gameplay decisions.
This is the most important part and where i see your idea of creating many small games on the cheap to later blossom as having the most merrit. What made minecraft and dota work and catch fire is people could try them out for free to begin with. No one wants to pay for something they haven't experienced and this is why new IP's often crash and burn before they take off. If anyone here takes a moment to think about when they first played a new genera of game, or a new IP, i think you'd realize that it was often at a friends house, or you borrowing it, or because someone highly recommended it.
I'll spew one last bit of nonsense then call it a night. Back in the day Nintendo was top dog, had the best games, and they had an iron fist on the media relating to their games: Nintendo Power. They controlled not only what games came out on their console, but they also controlled how much media attention they got among their player base. In this environment, great gameplay really meant something, IP was inconsequential. A brand new IP like battletoads would come out and be ALL OVER the magazine, and there was no hesitation from owners to try brand new IP, because there was a lot of trust between how much air time a game got, and how good the game was. No marketing team was being payed millions of dollars to figure out how to shove bad games down kids throats. In the long run this payed off big time for Nintendo, alowing them to bring gaming literally out of the hole atari dug in the Nevada desert.
So why don't gamers play new IP's today? Because of marketing, because of the lies and "viral marketing". The fact that Viral marketing exists is the proof that marketing doesn't work any more. That the only way to make players try a game was to have them think they weren't being asked by marketing to play it. Put out a good game and make it free? Now that's some faith in the gameplay and a way to spread the word. Riot games, makers of the free game "league of legends" (one of several companies that have turned massive profits off of a DOTA clone) just received millions in investment and are expanding rapidly with a discerning eye for their human capital.
If large companies want to reverse the damage, and be able to actually sell a new innovative IP, they're going to have to give it away for free for a while, building back some trust with the consumer, innovative payment plans can be set up to turn a profit down the road once the consumer is comfortable with the IP.
The big difference between stranded, dwarf fortress and minecraft is a few super big things, since without even arguing we can say that dwarf fortress was and still is the deeper and more feature-filled game.
There has been a ton of minecraft style games around before minecraft, all with varying features, often much more complex than minecraft, some with infinite worlds.
But minecraft streamlined this genre, added multiplayer, made it super accessible.
And that is the fun part: the most successful indie games are the ones that dare experiment, but still follows the big league methods of streamlining and "dumbing down"
First thing that comes to mind would be Prince of Persia. Made for the Apple II in 1989. Appeared again with it's sequel in 93. Then it hit the console generation in 03 on the PS2 and Xbox.
I guess depending on how they work it, they can keep the scribblenauts/drawn to life thing going and fall back on it if needed? It kind of falls into the idea that once you grow a project to maturity you cycle the vets to new ventures?
But it seems like instead of sticking to the pilot program idea they're swinging for the fences... risky... very risky, especially given the over saturation of genre they're going for. Best of luck to them!
It would be hard to learn from Minecrafts success either, because the game was developed very organically, expanding as it gained success, rather than having a solid plan to push out a pilot and react accordingly.
This is getting more popular in the indie scene (the devs of interstellar marines are using a very similar approach) but I don't see it becoming a widespread trend - It's alot more risky for the devlopers, harder to get it to work with publishers, and more than anything, I don't see people buying into it for long. This might come from the part of me that ordered the special edition of Natural Selection 2 nearly two years ago, but if more devs pick this route, eventually we will see a project crash with thousands of supporters left in a lurch with a buggy/unplayable game / no game at all, and this will discourage others from doing the same thing.
It's funny that it took me so long to realize that Portal fits the bill perfectly; now that I think of it Orange Box's model actually makes sense. Bundling a short game representing a new IP with a more popular title seems like a good way to give it some exposure.
edit:
Regarding Minecraft; I don't think it's a good example at all. It's a rather odd case because one of the reasons why the game became so insanely popular is because for a while it used to be a favourite title of 4Channers and Goons. And we all know what happens when something becomes popular in the rotten holes of the internet that 4chan and Something Awful are.