The Business Side of Video (Space) Games EXCLUSIVELY ON IDLE THUMBS

[Bjorn]

If MS is really willing to spend that much for Mojang, I'm all for Notch and company taking it.  We don't know the stock/ownership structure of Mojang, but my impression of Notch is that he would make sure everyone with the company got paid, and paid well, through such a sale.  So it's not even like it's just his own payday he's looking at.  If I was in his position and totally independently wealthy at this point, but I could easily also make all my employees independently wealthy, I would feel a moral obligation to do that. 

 

All that said, I completely agree with the OMGPOP analogy.  I cannot imagine any scenario where this is a profitable or successful acquisition for MS. 

[Griddlelol]

n other Microsoft business news Japan's release of the XB1 was a flop, as expected. In two days it barely pushed over 20k units sold. The 360 sold 62k on its first day in Japan, by comparison. The Wii U and PS4, current competition, each sold 304k and 322k in their first two days in Japan respectively. As I said, this isn't surprising, because console gaming in Japan is on a downward trend and being replaced by mobile gaming. 

 

I wonder how much that was impacted by both Titanfall and Dead Rising being on PC. I know Japan isn't big on PC gaming, but neither are they big on console or Microsoft. I'm sure those really interested in the Xbone games would have grabbed them on PC.

[JonCole]

From what I understand, the Xbox One is seemingly releasing in Japan almost exclusively for ex-pats. Gone are the days that you would get JP localizations for games, you basically just get the English language version of the game, cross your fingers for subtitles and maybe you'll be graced by the inclusion of a JP manual.

[tegan]

Japan has always been a really weak territory for Xbox. I'm not surprised that it's only being released as a sort of token gesture now.

[Ben X]

If Notch becomes a billionaire, you know Psychonauts 2 is happening.

[Mangela Lansbury]

Notch making outrageous demands of Microsoft, about 2 years ago.

 

https://twitter.com/notch/status/251239807257296897

https://twitter.com/notch/status/281139739304800256

[Henroid]

We need publisher news, if only to demonstrate their personalities. Luckily for us Gamasutra supplies a little something for both.

 

First up, Activision: Not surprising anyone they want to talk big about how well Destiny is doing. They've noted it has shipped $500 million dollars worth - note that's shipped and not amount of purchases - and they project that the game will earn $400 in September alone. They also project it will sell 15 million units by the end of the year, and that its day one digital purchases were record smashing. No numbers provided, of course. It's been a day only, I suppose we won't get any real details 'til late October.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/225310/Destiny_ships_500_million_on_day_one.php

 

Next up, Electronic Arts! This one grosses me out because of how... leech-like EA is. Basically they're on board with the idea of the Apple Watch (which isn't new tech, Samsung has been doing it for a while). They wanna make games and other software for it and are already prototyping stuff. The thing that grosses me out is that they refer to the technology as "Wearables," which sounds like they want to coin a term (unless it's been used before) and that grates on my old-man age.

http://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/225354/EAs_mobile_division_is_trying_to_make_games_for_smartwatches.php

[JonCole]

Wearables is definitely a thing, the term grew out of the fitness-tracker category when those devices gained more functionality and the Pebble came out.

[neonrev]

Wearables implies a future where any space on your body that could have a screen strapped to it will be treated as a new and exciting market.
iRing. Unlock your car, use it as a credit card, bump rings together with people green lantern style to add them on various social media sites!

I think I actually want that last one. Doesn't seem impossible either.

[miffy495]

Yeah, "wearables" has been around for a while. Notably, stuff like Google Glass.

[Henroid]

I am old. I can't keep up with the youth and tech anymore.

[elmuerte]

2 billion in $100 bills:

[tegan]

I actually think wearable tech is pretty cool, but that the Apple Watch definitely isn't. Sadly it's the application most likely to take off.

[Henroid]

August 2014 NPD numbers are available! Here's the NeoGAF link.

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=893306

 

Notable things!

 

- PS4 is still the #1 hardware seller

- XB1 doubled its July numbers, thanks to the Madden bundle

- Madden was the top seller combined across four platforms (PS3, PS4, 360, XB1), doing its best on the current gen

- Watch Dogs on XB1 is still being outsold by PS4, PS3, and 360 versions

- The Last of Us Remastered on PS4 was the best first party title

- The Diablo 3 expansion sold its best on PS4, and it and Madden are the best selling 3rd-party titles for August

- Minecraft is the 3rd best selling software (PS3 and 360) (wtf this game has infinite momentum)

- No info on Nintendo hardware

- No comments offered by Nintendo (yet?)

 

- Hardware sales up 116% yoy, software sales up 21% yoy ; overall increase is 8% yoy for the industry YAY

[JonCole]

YOY

[Henroid]

YOLO YOY

 

BTW I just read on Polygon that Paul McCartney not only did the music for Destiny, but he did it for free.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/11/6136371/paul-mccartney-destiny-single

 

Along with Activision somehow licensing Led Zeppelin's music (something Zeppelin almost never does and it's never about money) this game is now an enigma to me, regarding its funding. The $500 million dev / marketing cost HAS to be mostly allocated to its marketing.

[Bjorn]

YOLO YOY

 

BTW I just read on Polygon that Paul McCartney not only did the music for Destiny, but he did it for free.

http://www.polygon.com/2014/9/11/6136371/paul-mccartney-destiny-single

 

Along with Activision somehow licensing Led Zeppelin's music (something Zeppelin almost never does and it's never about money) this game is now an enigma to me, regarding its funding. The $500 million dev / marketing cost HAS to be mostly allocated to its marketing.

 

Somehow this puts a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure I can even exactly explain why.  I feel like it's tied into the circumstances around Marty leaving Bungie.  Plus, it feels like if McCartney is willing to give new work to a game with a budget of a half billion fucking dollars, less scrupulous people at Activision (or EA or Ubi) will use that as pressure against smaller musicians ("Hey kid, even Sir McCartney recognizes the power of video games, it's like the power of love, but with a billion dollar budget").  That might be total conspiracy theory level paranoia, but it hardly seems out of the realm of possibility. 

[Ucantalas]

YOY

That's the nickname I gave to my Yveltal in Pokemon Y.

[SuperBiasedMan]

I don't know if they would invoke Paul McCartney as an example, but it does absolutely reinforce a strong precedent of the artistic work not having value, and the people who make budgets and hire people will remember this whether they realise it or not.

[prettyunsmart]

Somehow this puts a bad taste in my mouth, and I'm not sure I can even exactly explain why.  I feel like it's tied into the circumstances around Marty leaving Bungie.  Plus, it feels like if McCartney is willing to give new work to a game with a budget of a half billion fucking dollars, less scrupulous people at Activision (or EA or Ubi) will use that as pressure against smaller musicians ("Hey kid, even Sir McCartney recognizes the power of video games, it's like the power of love, but with a billion dollar budget").  That might be total conspiracy theory level paranoia, but it hardly seems out of the realm of possibility. 

 

When I saw that quote, that there was, "no check involved, big or otherwise," my first thought was that he was simply paid via direct deposit. Still, whether it's tricky wording or if he really did work for free, it does feel wrong somehow. I think you're right that it furthers the message to creative people that just getting their work out their is payment in itself, which is just wrong.

 

In other games-as-businesses news: was anyone else troubled by that Polygon editorial about hiring "the best" staff without paying them a salary? I understand the appeal of being a part of a start up, but articles like this only seem to similarly suggest that breaking into the industry requires tons and tons of unpaid labor. 

[JonCole]

I've seen similar blogs on Gamasutra about startup game dev companies and I don't really have a problem with them granted everyone is on a very deliberately negotiated contract that's based on revenue share. Rev share =/= "unpaid". Sure if the game isn't successful, then it's unpaid but that's under the terms of a specific agreement that would basically say "you might get unpaid".

[Merus]

See, I'm conflicted about that because the same advice applies if you're going to pay a below-average salary, or if it's clear the relationship is "we're equals, and we own this together". There's a long history in business of owners of a fledgling business forgoing salary to grow the business and get dividends down the line. If I was making a game on my own, I wouldn't expect to pay myself a salary.

 

I think that the advice conflicts if you have new people coming in who aren't founders, because they won't get the opportunity to have their ideas be the foundation of whatever it is that's being built.

[Henroid]

There's a lot of factors to consider. The angle I would take is drawing analogy to unpaid internships, where one gets experience working in a field prior to being able to work in it. Granted, if you look at things like radio you'll see abuse of that (where unpaid interns are just rotated in over and over, and not all of them get jobs working in radio). But that would be like big publishers doing that sorta thing. With small start-ups, that tune would be different. It gets your name on something, and another smaller company (not necessarily a start-up) or maybe even a mid-tier will be able to see your work.

 

Basically the question is, are you willing to work on something for little to know pay to demonstrate your competency / skill at it?

 

(All that said, I think unpaid work is a load of shit; I'm hyper sensitive to issues regarding poverty)

[prettyunsmart]

I've seen similar blogs on Gamasutra about startup game dev companies and I don't really have a problem with them granted everyone is on a very deliberately negotiated contract that's based on revenue share. Rev share =/= "unpaid". Sure if the game isn't successful, then it's unpaid but that's under the terms of a specific agreement that would basically say "you might get unpaid".

 

I think a lot of my discomfort with that article comes from the title more than the content itself. I understand how revenue sharing models can work for everyone involved, and how it can be a great thing for all members of the team if the game sells well. At the same time, if this is (or becomes) the norm in the indie space, there would have to be a lot of people who take the gamble and end up losing a lot of money. To some extent it seems like a version of the logic behind unpaid internships, but with better intentions behind it. The idea that people working for free with hopes of benefits coming later is becoming an increasingly common part of the economy just feels gross to me, but then again, I'm probably massively over-simplifying this.

 

EDIT: Henroid, you beat me to the unpaid internship analogy, but good point. Also, I think part of my problem with this is that many people coming from low-income backgrounds wouldn't be in a position to take that kind of risk. 

[Henroid]

EDIT: Henroid, you beat me to the unpaid internship analogy, but good point. Also, I think part of my problem with this is that many people coming from low-income backgrounds wouldn't be in a position to take that kind of risk. 

That's another big issue with this. But I mean, I can also understand start-ups not having the means to pay (as much or until sales revenue come in).