Moderators: The Preacher, $iljanus, Zaxxon
EA's bright and shiny new corporate trademark is "Challenge Everything." Where this applies is not exactly clear. Churning out one licensed football game after another doesn't sound like challenging much of anything to me; it sounds like a money farm.
Nail meet head.Ironrod wrote:I also wonder if these work practices explain why so many games lack the fun factor.
Apparently what you've written above is a common misperception (including myself for that matter) but according to this guy it is not true:Jeff V wrote:There would be no pleasing you people. The cost of games (which is predominately labor anyway) would go up, maybe drastically. Since everyone would bitch about that, the game companies would simply stop developing the games in this country and do so overseas, creating even more unemployed game developers than we have now (ask how many folks working those 15 hour days if they would prefer to be unemployed instead).
Don't think for a second that EA is the only company behaving like this - independent development studios are just as bad. The burnout rate is 5 years on average - that is across all developers and publishers. It's only going to change when there are no more programmers, artists, and designers willing to work those kind of hours, anywhere in the world -- or the public becomes more tolerant of expensive games that are done when they are done.
I don't know about you Jeff, but I know the first time I get a title made by Bollywood Software, and my Honorable knight saves the princess by doing an intricate song and dance routine right at the antigonist, I'm quitting PC Gaming for goodJeff V wrote: Since everyone would bitch about that, the game companies would simply stop developing the games in this country and do so overseas, creating even more unemployed game developers than we have now (ask how many folks working those 15 hour days if they would prefer to be unemployed instead).
Same thing that while I like some Japanese titles (squaresoft notably) a lot of them American Audiences just dont "get". Same with many european titles (with the exception of gothic and whatnot, think of how many copies settlers sold in the states vs europe...) Ummm... No. The primary cost of games is not labor. The primary cost of games these days is purchasing the IP, and then marketing.Jeff V wrote:There would be no pleasing you people. The cost of games (which is predominately labor anyway) would go up, maybe drastically. Since everyone would bitch about that, the game companies would simply stop developing the games in this country and do so overseas, creating even more unemployed game developers than we have now (ask how many folks working those 15 hour days if they would prefer to be unemployed instead).
Don't think for a second that EA is the only company behaving like this - independent development studios are just as bad. The burnout rate is 5 years on average - that is across all developers and publishers. It's only going to change when there are no more programmers, artists, and designers willing to work those kind of hours, anywhere in the world -- or the public becomes more tolerant of expensive games that are done when they are done.
I would disagree. Not all, even most games are based upon purchased IP. Blizzard games don't use purchased IP, neither does the Total War series, the Age of "X" series, the Civilization series, the Sims series, etc. I don't know about the marketing vs. production split, but I would say for most games purchased IP simply isn't a factor.jg93 wrote:Ummm... No. The primary cost of games is not labor. The primary cost of games these days is purchasing the IP, and then marketing.
Some game developers have no discernable lives outside of their work...and companies obviously love to hold that out as the ideal. I've heard managers lament the end of a project because they don't know what to do with their free time, and they have to go back to eating meals outside the office. It is sick. This is the mentality that gets people promoted to managerial roles, perpetuating the system.jg93 wrote:However, when I hear other leads say 'its time to start living here' or 'bring the cots in' I cringe.
IMO, you can't make a fun game when everyone making the game hates the game, the company they work for, and the people running it because they're a bunch of fat, pimply, chronic masturbators who have no business managing schedules, people or money.
Considering the number of games companies that fall by the wayside, I find it unlikely game companies are high margin/low risk entities.jg93 wrote:What you fail to understand here is the disparity in income the 'grunts' make compared to those running the companies.
Uh, that's really not exactly true. When people quote that number they are not only talking about software, but gaming machines (consoles) and peripherals. Pure software alone is significantly less than the movie industry, though growing.JSHAW wrote:With the gaming industry earning more money than the film industry
I wouldn't warn anybody else not to give it a try, as long as you go in with your eyes open. If you're already thinking about what they can and can't do legally, you don't have the attitude to get ahead. And nobody ever retires from a game studio!Misguided wrote:Great....and here I am thinking of trying to get into the industry at the age of 35...*sigh*
Incidentally, a lot of places think they can legally make people work any number of hours they want, simply because they are salaried. This is true in some cases, but there are requirements involved...like a certain number of employees etc.
Additionally, I think the "earnings" for Hollywood only include box office take. Not DVDs, merchandising, licensing, etc.Grifman wrote:Uh, that's really not exactly true. When people quote that number they are not only talking about software, but gaming machines (consoles) and peripherals. Pure software alone is significantly less than the movie industry, though growing.JSHAW wrote:With the gaming industry earning more money than the film industry
Grifman
