Chris

You're being sarcastic, but this is exactly how theatre works. There's a reason they're called "angel investors." Lots of arts funding works this way. Sounds to me like money is not his business' primary goal, but rather simply a means to achieving the actual goal. Well, to be fair, I can't understand anything at all about your sentence.

This is the only part I'm going to respond to, because it is unbelievable to me that you still don't know what I'm talking about. There is a difference between doing something where money is your primary goal, and doing something where you acknowledge you need money to operate. For the four hundred billionth time, I am not saying businesses do not need money. I am saying that the primary goal of some businesses is not profit. They still also need to make money to stay open. When I brought up these examples of small arts oriented companies, I specifically stipulated they need to make enough to pay the bills and keep the lights on.. However, there is a difference between going after the most commercially viable works available, and going after the ones that will make less money, but you find more artistically worthwhile, and will not LOSE you money. Am I making myself clear? Money is not the primary goal, but it is still necessary to keep things running. I am not saying companies should, or do, deliberately invest in money-losing enterprises. Furthermore, your example is not even very sound. There are plenty of reasons a distributor of creative works could choose to fund a project that might lose money if he has enough confidence in the artist to use that initial run to gain a foothold and follow up stronger, catching more people on in the process. A small run of a comic book is not a particularly onerous investment and in a broader portfolio does not need to break the bank if the belief is that the investment will be returned in the long run. Ron Gilbert has talked about this, including in the interview Jake and I did with him on Idle Thumbs in 2004 (which I guess is no longer available). Based on his success at Humongous, he believes one viable strategy in games when you have a game that sells poorly but that you believe is a strong property is to simply, as he says, "Hit it again, then hit it again." Just keep going, until it finally grabs on in the marketplace. He says that's exactly how he treated Humongous' series. In any case, I really think I'm done discussing this at this point. I don't know how I can make it any more clear that there is a difference between doing something with money as the primary goal, and doing something where money is part of keeping things running but not the primary goal.

The reality is that humans span an incredibly broad spectrum of opinions, actions, ethics, and goals, and companies are nothing but collections of humans. Companies too span an incredibly wide spectrum. No. In the case of publishers, often yes. Activision CEO Bobby Kotick basically has a disdain for games and (I suspect) gamers. But as far as developers go, no. There's no point. Video game development is not at all lucrative or secure compared to other types of software development. It would make no sense to just be in it for the money. Not really. Video game funding is still a really poorly-understood science. That kind of direct investment is pretty uncommon. There is often VC funding for independent developers, but even that is relatively uncommon, and most games are publisher-funded.

Making money is a purpose of a business. It is not the sole purpose of every business. I have never once said that companies do not exist to make money, and if I did, it was simply poor phrasing borne out of the fact that I had no clue this discussion was going to get so preposterously technical. But they do not inherently only exist for that purpose. Again, do you disagree that the purpose of Double Fine (just as a single example) is to create video games and provide a place to work where people can create a particular type of video game? Companies want to do a lot of things, but making money is not the only one, and in some cases it is not even the primary one--in many cases, making money is simply the means to an end. That's not to say it CAN'T be the only reason; my entire point here is that not every business is the same. So you believe I'm unaware that business can act in unethical ways, or something? I don't know what you're trying to prove here. Yes, banks love money. Great. Good job. My argument is not that all business are altruistic, or that most are. In fact I still don't know why we're having such a far-reaching discussion, it's ridiculous. I'm saying that different companies exist for an enormous variety of reasons. A charity is one type of nonprofit organization. There are also trade organizations, nonprofit companies that exist to promote the arts, and so on. They can produce products that they sell. A nonprofit organization still needs to bring in revenues, pay salaries, have a business plan, and so on. They have CEOs and CFOs and all the rest. You may consider it an oxymoron but they are legal entities that exist just as for-profit companies do, they just have different aims. Furthermore, there are for-profit companies where profit is not the primary goal, usually ones centered around distributing art: Musicians who run companies and are happy just to make enough to pay the bills and put records out, independent comic book publishers who may make some degree of profit but who exist first and foremost to help distribute the work of artists who would not otherwise have an easy time securing distribution, etc. There are many companies that, to satisfy their owners, only need to make enough money to keep the lights on. That's not to say, in those cases, that those same people wouldn't love to also be making more money than that--but that does not need to be their primary goal. You also never responded to this: Why are they running their business that way rather than a different way? Is that the only way to run a network? Are there not people at that network who see some intangible value in attempting to make a successful network that can make money operating in that fashion, rather than operating in a different fashion? Do you (personally) care about nothing but money? At your job, do you care about nothing but money and nothing else? At what point does somebody go through this transformation that the only thing that matters is money? Is it a one-step process? How many steps is it? How high up at the company do you have to be before it happens? I am genuinely curious about this. I don't know when that switch happens. Is it just when you run the company, as you do? Is that when you turn into the single-minded money robot? For that matter, a company's actual actions in the real world are not purely dictated by its owner. And is it inconceivable to you that somebody who runs a business might decline to do something that would, in all probability, make more money for the company, if that action would As far as I'm aware, there were several failures in a row with The Movies, Black & White 2, and their respective expansions. I also have a strong suspicion that the Black & White series in general, including the first one, cost a vast amount of money over the years (including long development times, canceled versions, and so on) that were unlikely to have been all that profitable in the end, particularly since the second game did make so little a splash. That could be more significant in my memory than in reality at this point, however. That's not at all how I read his quotes. It could be that's what he meant. If what he's saying is "try to make something successful" that's fairly obvious and meaningless and not helpful or interesting to anybody. It's the overall picture he paints that I find very off-putting. Creative risk and financial risk are basically the same as far as his statements go, to me. He's saying Dexter wasn't creatively risky, because they did all the research to make sure that concept was a safe one, and so on. His statements still to me suggest a ridiculous focus-tested creative world where, as he says, creative people don't actually go off and create. Yeah, and pretty much all of my favorite game companies do incredibly heavy playtesting. That's very different to focus testing, and it's also driven by the creators. Well that's not entirely true since Gilliam essentially has to start from scratch each time knocking on doors so to speak, whereas Molyneux has a full-time job at an actual publisher that funds and distributes games itself. But yes I basically know what you mean in that both of them need to convince somebody, and obviously yes I'm aware that things need to get greenlit to be funded. But there's a difference between "de-risking" an idea, and communicating your own true idea in a compelling way. Man, some people get all the luck. Kingz gets a one-sentence response, I get increasingly massive point-by-point ones that I somehow can't bring myself to stop responding to.

It's pretty minor and not particularly difficult. Rhythm Heaven is a particularly difficult game for a lot of people.

Bah, not compatible with 64-bit OS.

No, I feel exactly the same way.

Yeah, I think that's probably true.

Based on my discussions with them, I get the sense they either wouldn't mind, or also think it's cool (at least cool enough not to mind).

Wow, this actually looks way more awesome than I was expecting. I guess I didn't have a specific expectation, but this looks interesting. I don't really care that it's like Fallout, which seems to be a common observation both here and elsewhere; the world looks a lot more like Mad Max to me, which is pretty rad.

Honestly, I don't even think he entirely knows what he's trying to say. You could be right. He had one actual example, and he admitted he was just kind of guessing about it in the first place. The whole thing just came off as a very wishy-washy, lame series of statements. I don't know how I allowed myself to get dragged into a big thing about the Nature of Corporations or whatever we're discussing at this point.

My long-held opinion on this matter is that they don't really know how to sell an intricate, fairly old-school single-player fantasy RPG these days--there haven't been many of those at all recently. Oblivion is one of the only really successful ones recently, and I'd say Dragon Age is much more old school (and from what I've seen probably more ambitious) than that game. I think marketing is just freaking out.

A company is nothing but people. People are not perfect money-making machines. Why does somebody start a particular business? By that I mean, why do you start a business in one field rather than another, particularly in an entertainment field? Because you enjoy or love or have an interest in it, right? Let's take Double Fine. What does that "company" want? You think that "company" exists purely as a money-wanting entity and nothing else? Would you really care to back that up? Double Fine--that is to say, the people who comprise Double Fine, since the company itself only exists insofar as the people who make it up does--has multiple goals: to make money, to continue existing, to make video games, and beyond that to make video games its people actually care about and want to make. A company does not make decisions. The people who comprise the company make decisions. I'm not going to have this argument about banks. I can't believe you'd get on my ass about using another television example, and then start bringing up banks, which are so preposterously far from the topic of this conversation it's not even worth addressing. Why are they running their business that way rather than a different way? Is that the only way to run a network? Are there not people at that network who see some intangible value in attempting to make a successful network that can make money operating in that fashion, rather than operating in a different fashion? Do you care about nothing but money? At your job, do you care about nothing but money and nothing else? At what point does somebody go through this transformation that the only thing that matters is money? Is it a one-step process? How many steps is it? How high up at the company do you have to be before it happens? I don't need you to lecture me about the world. Businesses run an incredible range of purposes, sizes, goals, and methods of operation, from non-profit, to privately held for-profit, to privately held for essentially vanity's sake with no expectation of profitability, to publicly-owned, and many more. So, what you're saying here is that different business models and different ways of producing things that can allow for different types of art to reach an audience in different ways. And that there are profitable companies, such as HBO, that can afford to run their businesses in ways that allow for different types of creative expression, and that it's not all one homogeneous process. Good. I'm glad we agree on that point. Molyneux has had an amazing number of both failures and successes, and has always continued to be a well-funded and prominent member of the game development community. If you don't think things like self-promotion and notoriety and reputation can be just as important as actual dollars made, you don't pay much attention to how things work. So you're specifically talking about publicly-owned companies here? What about privately owned companies? Because Molyneux was not saying "in the context of Lionhead," he was addressing the industry as a whole. I am not responding to Molyneux's comments with respect to how Lionhead operates, I am responding to his comments with respect to his belief that this is how the entire industry should operate. All you need to do is convince the investors of that. It's their responsibility to decide whether it's actually going to happen or not. If you can convince somebody to let you make your crazy game idea, fucking do it. Maybe it doesn't end up being a hit, but fucking whatever, if you can keep the studio going and you've made an amazing thing, then great. This industry needs more of that, and less of the big focus test-fest. The whole point is ridiculous because there are tons and tons of things that have huge amounts of customer research that fail miserably. There are also tons of things that have huge amounts of research that are successful. My point is that there IS no system that's going to actually figure that out, as much as there are lots of people who would like to believe there is. Obviously, those practices can help "de-risk" projects. But I'd still rather see somebody push through a project that hasn't been de-risked. Some of my favorite works across many forms can be described that way. I'd like those things to be commercially successful, but I'd rather they exist and not be big hits than not exist at all. And, fortunately for me, there are consistently creators across many forms of entertainment who feel the same way and are willing to push for that. Those people, even more than me, would love all of those projects to be big successes, but--again, fortunately--in many cases their desire to get those works made frequently at least partially compensates for those concerns. I guess, by the way, you'd be chiding Terry Gilliam for making too risky a project if you could have a face to face conversation with him, based on your mention of his latest project and the arguments you've espoused in this thread?

I was "debating" Molyneux on his own terms! I think they're stupid terms, but he brought up an example in cable TV, so I did too. I sometimes feel like you (you specifically) pick arguments with me on these forums about things that go even beyond the scope of what the argument is about in the first place. Okay? I'm not saying it's great for things to lose money. And there are factors that exist other than "emotion" and "money." For example, HBO thought it was worthwhile for the network to have a "prestige" show that wasn't much of a moneymaker but that did reinforces the network's priority of quality and a certain type of programming that is not feasible on the broadcast networks. Obviously they aren't going to throw money down a pit to achieve that, but the show ran for five full seasons and was of incredibly high quality throughout. My view is not romanticized. My view is that the creative people shouldn't be the cynical ones. There are people whose job that is. The point is for the creative people to fight for their creative vision, and for the money people to fight for their financial interest. Not for everyone to exist in a shitty retarded world where everything is "de-risked." Jesus fucking Christ. But if you are truly that jaded that you believe it is impossible for anyone involved in a business to care about anything other than money, than I guess I'm sorry and we probably can't discuss this. Thanks for your concern about my bubble, though.

What the fuck

Just to quickly clarify something, I didn't mention Brutal Legend. I was much more heavily referring to Schafer's previous games, which are probably a lot less safe overall but I think are incredibly valuable and important works for this industry to have produced.

Are you serious? Molyneux was the one who brought up Dexter, which is on a cable channel. He can bring it up, but I can't? And Mad Men is on its third season and The Wire ran for five. My point is that those networks clearly have an attitude that is different to Molyneux's. I'm making the opposite point of Molyneux. They were successful enough to keep running on those networks. What are you saying, exactly? That we'd be better off without those shows?

I am also a drummer, and I guess to me that wouldn't be the biggest barrier. I'll agree to disagree on that though, everyone has a different experience. My point is that it's not necessarily taken care of by the game, as I've mentioned in a few posts.

Okay, well then I don't think it's the responsibility of those people either.

Actually, from what I can tell after some internet research, Bionic Commander is actually the original Bionic Commando's Bionic Commando.

It's full of shit when you look at how some of the best TV shows--which are his primary example, for some bizarre reason, despite sharing little in common with the way games are developed and marketed--have been produced. Consistently, some of the most interesting, respected, and even successful TV shows have NOT been the ones that were focus tested to hell or determined to be the things most fitting to the current market demands. They are the ones that have to be shopped around to many networks based on the conviction of their creator, usually despite serious doubts by the majority of the networks. Mad Men is a great current example of that. The Wire is another groundbreaking show that would clearly not have been repeatedly renewed if all HBO was looking for was market acceptance. He also admits he has no idea about Dexter. Which do you think is more likely, that somebody had an idea for the show and pushed hard to get it through, or that somebody determined that serial killer heroes were a fitting choice for today's market? I mean, hell, BioShock? Anyone ever read about the path that game took? You think it would have been halfway as interesting had Ken Levine been following the Molyneux line on this one? What about any Tim Schafer game? Would this industry be any better off if his games had been more market-tested and a bit more successful, rather than only modestly successful yet fantastically interesting? The whole attitude is just disgusting to me. I fully realize that that mentality must exist when you're the person who is actually signing the checks, but to instruct the whole chain to think like that is fucking ridiculous and depressing. I'm not saying creators should just be up in the clouds and make things that they know nobody is going to like, but that is not at all how Molyneux's statement reads to me. It's the responsibility of the creator to push for something creative and unique (obviously without becoming an impossible to work with asshole), and it's the responsibility of those holding the purse strings to keep things marketable and practical. One person can't reasonably be both, and shouldn't. The tension between the two has produced greatness. The lack of tension between the two has produced Michael Bay. edit: I don't mean to suggest studios shouldn't actively playtest. But there's a big difference between that and the kind of concept focus testing that Molyneux is talking about.

I'm at work right now but I'll try to remember to walk over to my shelf and note down some titles when I get home. Most of what I read is done by individuals rather than teams, so that's fine. But while I'm here, on the topic of French comics, I love Monsieur Jean by Dupuy and Berberian. It's one of the few examples of comics I read that isn't by an individual, but it's an unusual case in that the two co-authors share duties on everything, from writing to inking -- they don't have specific roles as writer or artist. Drawn & Quarterly has published a full volume of their Monsieur Jean work (as well as a volume of work by Philippe Dupuy), and individual Monsieur Jean strips have been printed in Drawn & Quarterly collections. Also I guess speaking of French comics published by Drawn & Quarterly, David B.'s Epileptic is truly incredible.

Well, probably not much, in the same way the American comics I read don't represent anything remotely close to the American comics mainstream or what's published by a major publisher.

That's a big of an exaggeration--it's one I've used, but in the context of somebody talking about actually learning how to play the drums, it's not entirely accurate. That is to say, it's possible to succeed on expert drums without actually knowing what you're doing as a drummer, simply by treating it like a video game where you just have to hit all (or enough of) the buttons at the right time. I don't think feedback is really what makes the difference either, at least rock rock drumming (which even at its most subtle is not particularly subtle). The much more important part is understanding limb independence.

http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/do-whatever-it-takes-to-de-risk-projects-molyneux This is such garbage. Molyneux has descended into total lameness at this point as far as I'm concerned.