DICE 2012: Analysts agree publishers broken, not the system
The annual DICE summit got started with a debate that struck to the foundation of the video game industry. "Is the publishing model broken?" asked...
The annual DICE summit got started with a debate that struck to the foundation of the video game industry. "Is the publishing model broken?" asked the first debate in the Hot Topics panel. Analyst Michael Pachter started the case for it being broken by pointing to the recent woes of THQ and its inability to be a successful business on $800 million in revenue. In such an environment, Pachter suggests that the end game could see the field reduced to only a couple of players, like EA and Activision. He feels that outcome will be bad for the business, that we will be playing Call of Duty 37 at that rate, and that gamers will get shortchanged as new IP dwindles.
In counterpoint, Jesse Divinch of EEDAR said that publishers allow innovation by helping it achieve success on a larger scale. He cited Guitar Hero as an example of a game franchise that found widespread success when Activision picked it up after a couple of well-received but lower performing versions initially came out. The publisher became the conduit as he put it that pushes content out so that it can be experienced.
As a compromise, Divinch offered that maybe it's not the model that's broken, but rather the publishers themselves. Pachter said that he agreed on that point. Divinch went on to talk about the issue of new IP being stifled, saying that publishers adhere to the rule that new IP isn't released late in the cycle because it isn't what the consumer wants. Pachter turned on that point, suggesting that publishers need to take a page from Steve Jobs' strategy and have the vision to tell gamers what they want.
Whether the model or the publishers, the contrast Divinch made between the list of publishers who've gone out of business over the past few years--from Acclaim to Midway and many more in between--to the lack of newcomers made it clear that the situation is tough, no matter who's to blame.
-
Garnett Lee posted a new article, DICE 2012: Analysts agree publishers broken, not the system.
The annual DICE summit got started with a debate that struck to the foundation of the video game industry. "Is the publishing model broken?" asked...-
"Pachter turned on that point, suggesting that publishers need to take a page from Steve Jobs' strategy and have the vision to tell gamers what they want."
What? I don't think anyone needs to tell gamers what WE want. They need to let the designers create the games that are FUN and that we WOULD want. There is a difference there and I don't think the Steve Jobs' strategy applies, since he was making computers not games. Plus, I would say his vision was to give us what he thought we could use, not tell us what we want... -
-
exactly. thats why I dont see why the publisher is even needed... more or less a content delivery system is needed. 'steam' and then funding from investors or an entrepreneur.
publishers are like a middleman thats really just getting in the way of the talent making their just due profits and stiffling the innovation that is needed to keep things fresh.-
Uhh, I hate to defend publishers but a lot of AAA games would not exist without them. I'd say probably the majority if not all of them wouldn't exist. These games require huge workforces and lots of money to sustain them - both of which the publisher supplies. They provide people for external testing, recording (studios and voice actors), motion capture, localization, event planning, marketing, distribution, feedback, developers (if support is needed).. that's all I can think of for now but there are probably things I missed or am completely unaware of. All these things are important, although a couple of those things are debatable with respect to whether they actually make the project better. They're needed, without them a lot of companies would be dead right now, considering the investment required and the number of failed projects, even when the game itself might actually be good.
That said, publishers do have a lot of influence in things I think they should stay out of, and very few publishers have actually managed to understand that.
-
-
-
I think the large companies aren't taking risks and aren't agile enough to respond to what the consumer wants. You only have to look at the rise of the indie games to see that there is a demand for games that break the mold. Not every game needs to be extreme budgets to be successful or deemed a quality game. I think they need to go back to build games that are fun to play not just fun to look at.
-
I think there is space for both. I was afraid of the monopoly with all these large companies folding, however the recent push of indie games and platforms like Steam, Origin and marketplaces like iOS and Android, the smaller companies will still survive and bring with them the breath of fresh air that is new IP. Not every game has to be a AAA hit to survive or even do quite well.
-
The "suits" bring nothing to the game other than a serious blow to the operating expenditure costs. Look I'm not saying gaming doesn't need the "suits" but some of these large game corps are just like other industries that are SERIOUSLY top heavy in the management department. Whats worse is that most of these "suits" aren't gamers at all and have no passion for anything other than profit for shareholders. Game companies seemed to do pretty well before all these "suits" came to the party. Seems like the pendulum has swung a little to far towards the business side. There needs to be a happy medium.
-