 |
| |
|
|
Theseus
|
 |
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
I caught up on some business reading today, and found this interesting:
"From Wall Street Stage to Screen "
By Andrew Ross Sorkin, New York Times
LEAD PARAGRAPH - Now we know what some top bankers do between deals: play video games. Jonathan Plutzik, a vice chairman at Credit Suisse First Boston, is so enthralled with a game called Sid Meier's Civilization that he's becoming chairman of its maker, Firaxis Games. It doesn't hurt that Jeff Briggs, a founder of the company, is his brother-in-law.
Mr. Plutzik, 48, said last week that he was retiring from the bank to pursue other interests -- philanthropy, a little golf and video games.
________________________________
CSFB just went through a serious shake-up, and I guess this was part of it.
I've heard of this guy though, and he is a PLAYER (business reference, not games).
No insult to the gaming industry guys, but I expect that he will instill both business discipline and customer focus at Firaxis.
So do me a favor... quit being emotional, and instead, if you have complaints, figure out a way to get the issues addressed beyond simply flaming.
I suggest the following framework, in ascending order:
1) Game dynamics / interface: The Firaxians have already shown that they are committed to a good product, and welcome the input of the community. They do, however, suffer the same conditions that we all do, namely having a job. Let's work with'em, not beat'em up.
2) Development timetable: Up the stakes here... don't go nuts on Apolyton or CivFanatics, but go to the magazines instead. You want MP now? Orchestrate a campaign of letters to CGW and some of the game sales websites... the interaction between trade media and the gaming producers is much closer than you think.
3) Escalate to the business managers (sorry, Jonathan). They consider it emblematic if a customer goes to enough trouble to chase them down, and they react accordingly, with power.
______________________
It's easy too rant here... and fun too, in a way, because you get reactions from other impassioned community members. But it's not an effective way to get the results that you seek.
I'll name some names... people that I have observed as active, and adding valuable thought, but who I think could be more effective through other means... jimmytrick, Coracle, UberKrux... God, you guys have great contributions to make (and lots of others, too).
Firaxis and Infrogames are companies like any other... it ain't easy. I think that they are learning (slowly) that we exist in a new era, where products like Civ3 are an evolving dance between the producers and the audience.
They are trying... you have to give them that. And so must we, as best we can.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Theseus
|
|
The warmonger formerly known as rpodos. Gathering Storm! Apolyton Spirit!!
Apr 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
Grrr, I don't have any but the best intentions, but I really disagree.
I think we are in an entirely new era, due to the Internet, and I am more than willing to give Firaxis leeway while we all figure this out.
Put yourself in their (and I'll get to that) position:
You've got one of the best franchises in computer gaming... ever. Well, first, that's a new thing; it's not like this is Monopoly or Risk, you are expected to release new versions every once in a while.
As a series, you've kicked butt so far... Civ2 was an addictive and satisfying improvement in the series (although I'd argue number 3, including Empire).
Now you've got to DELIVER on Civ3.
Before now (Internet), you would have depended on designers, focus groups, the competition / imitators, and the media.
VOILA: Apolyton. Civ2 fanatics, telling you all that (you think) you need to know.
And then you gotta ship.
And you know it won't be perfect, to everyone.
Especially the very enthusiastic crew you depended upon.
Look, I'm no apologist... it's clear that the game was rushed for Christmas. But I guess my point is, get used to it. This is the way all non-physical products are going to be delivered to the market from now on... fast, fast, fast, and then, using forums like this, an iterative evolution. Somebody said here a couple of days ago, the development team now has the opportunity to interact with thousands customers, if not more, in real life usage. Let's try to find a way, here, at Apolyton, specifically for Cive3, to learn how to do that well. It's a new thing, and there'll be some pain along the way... so be it.
So yeah, you ARE right, software developers need to find the balance betwwen market imperatives and customer satisfaction... and I agree, the initial product was not a shining example. But I AM a satisfied customer, and more than that, a satisfied participant in the evolution of Civ3.
[OK, enough philosophy, I gotta get back to talkin' about WAR]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Capt Dizle
|
|
IMHO, the whole concept of the game was wrong from the beginning. It takes talent to make a good game. If you design your game to any significant degree based on input from internet forums you are certainly not going to get a good game. Why?
Because you are designing toward the consensus of a group, which is basically going to equal the lowest common denominator. Please, before you dismiss that, think about it.
Sid Meier is a game designing legend because he designed stuff that he found fun. Does anyone think that he took polls on what gameplay elelments to include? I am not saying that he didn't ask for feedback and react to it, but I am sure the essence of his games are the product of his mind, his talent, and his sweat.
Civ3 reeks of a game designed by committee. I doubt that Sid at the begining of any of his projects started with the premise that the primary essence of the game would be built around designing a game that the AI could perform well in, to the extent that the goal of the game was to make it difficult for the player to win. And yet that is all that Civ3 is.
And that has been the focus of the patches too.
I know that Sid doesn't care about the Civ series, he has publicly stated that he wants nothing to do with it, and it shows in this product.
I would caution Firaxis to never ever consider what the public wants when designing games. That is a sure route to failure.
OTOH, use the public for testing and feedback. That is where the internet can become a intricate element of game production.
jt
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
 |
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Doesn't have to BE that way though, and I contend that it won't be.
The problem is though, that aside from the occasional tee-shirt sale, most gaming companies have exactly ONE source of revenue...the next game.
So hell yes they hawk and hype it to the publisher in order to get the fattest deal they can. And then they code like mad men to try to get it out by Christmas, or whenever the money's slated to run dry, whichever will be happening first, hoping all the while that what they get nailed down will be "good enough" to get past the fans till they can put a person or two on patching to finish it up right.
If this isn't a pretty accurate picture of the industry as a whole (and I'm specifically NOT singling any individual company out here...it seems pretty commonplace across the board), by all means, somebody step in and stop me, but having studied the industry in general at some length before starting my own games company, this seems pretty standard practice.
It also seems a little silly.
These companies employ some of the greatest strategic minds in all of computer gaming. These are the guys who design and devise the very best strategy games of all time....and these same industry giants can't think of a single better or more innovative way to set their companies up than assembly-line-code-like-hell-and-get-it-out-the-door-by-Christmas-no-matter-what-to-pander-to-the-publisher-or-we-don't-survive?
I read in an article by B. Reynolds once that said something to the effect that 10% of the games produced make 90% of the profits, and with the industry structured as outlined above, is it any wonder that 90% of the games produced are either garbage or totally lacking in marketing support?
I think not.
I also think that I paid attention to the lessons these industry giants taught me as I spent time playing their strategy games, and studying up on how they're structured, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.
There ARE other ways of doing things, and if the industry giants don't figure them out, then they'll be shown by others who are more interested in cranking out quality games that don't "have to be out by Christmas."
So....I contend that what we'll see is a period of beta releases till enough fans get frustrated by having to accept that as the norm, and then they go off and form their own companies and get really innovative with how they're structured and financed and set up....and things start changing.
Sure, lots of them will fail, but some won't....some won't. And the ones that don't will make the Industry Giants stand up and take notice, if not sooner, then later.....but it'll happen.
It'll definitely happen.
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Thanks GP! And again, you're quite right. The tiny group I am putting together might be one of the countless groups that fall by the way without changing much of anything. I hope not, but I DO recognize that it could happen.
And, I should also say that I'm not out to change anything anyway....I just see a flawed system in place for making games, and have decided not to proceed down that path. The alternative then, is to make a new path. Eventually, if the path I've picked out proves to be a good one, maybe some other people will head down it as well...maybe nobody will....either way, at least I will know that nothing we produce is time-driven and frantically produced. If nobody else follows suit, well...maybe we'll be buying THEM someday....
NYE: Precisely, with the key difference that we'll NOT be hawking the game as anything close to a finished product....in fact, we won't even be selling it. I look at our iterative process and ongoing discussions as a means to do the followng things:
1) Find out if there's a market for the game (as opposed to the industry standard of hype it, sell it, code it, and hope like hell it flies off the shelves)
2) Beta test, using an increasingly large test pool (alpha release remains in house, beta release gets sent to a pre-determined tester pool, following releases made publicly available for free (free being the operative word, and the word that's missing from the language of most other companies in the business), and finally, once all the discussions are raging and ideas start flooding in, cull out the very best of those, tighten everything up, add in all the bells and whistles and sell it.
If we've done our jobs well, the free versions of the game will have the fans salivating to see it with all bells and whistles in place. In the meantime, we've both gained something important, even if what we (the company) has gained hasn't been monetary. We've gained the trust of the gaming community, and you can't put a pricetag on that....
-=Vel=-
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
 |
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chowlett
The idea is to go for free until the game is polished and finished, so we can poll ideas and get testing etc. done. Then we sell to the (hopefully large and keen) fanbase.
If we get that far, I think Velocigames will be happy. But the idea then is to do more games, I think (correct me Vel if I'm wrong), for which we will already have a section of gamers who know we can do it, and will listen to them, and frankly won't care hugely about constraints of time and money.
The idea is not commercial success, and many of us are entirely part-time (or in my case atm, no-time-at-all - damned degree things ). The idea is to show that a small company with little financial backing but a core of keen, motivated and inspired writers and coders can produce a kick-ass game because they are gamers. We see where it goes from there. |
Regarding initial free games: You mean the beta copies are free and beta testers get comp copies?
I wonder how well you can do with art and involved coding with only volunteer effort. We've seen Freeciv, et al. wander around in the wilderness for years.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Velociryx
|
|
of Candle'Bre
Apr 1999
time: 05:19
|
|
Hiyas GP!
Chowlett hit the bulk of the highspots with his post, but I wanted to take a moment to add to those thoughts.
First, it's true, commercial success is NOT high on my list of priorities.
Second, I believe in the team I have working with me.....I have absolute faith in them, and in our ability to do this.
Third, the way we're going about this whole thing sets us up very nicely for success. In my research (which I have done a lot of, since beginning this journey...more or less by accident, I might add), I discovered the core reasons why so many startup companies like this fail, and, I've taken those lessons to heart and planned around them.
The first biggest mistake is that most guys doing indie projects run things much like a dictatorship. Not cool, especially when dealing with volunteers. True, you cannot design a game by committee, and that's not what we're about. The vision, the genesis of the idea is mine, and it's my job to make sure we stay on that track.
Having said that though, I'll be quick to point out that there's no possible way I can think of everything, and even if I could, there's nothing that says my way is the best way. So, I actively engage the team members....actively shop around for ideas, and I put my own ideas up for close examination in case there's another, different, and/or better way of doing it. Thus, after a time, although the genesis of the idea was mine, and although I'll be checking everything to make sure the ideas we bring together stay true to the overall vision, that still leaves a lot of room for creativity and involvement of the team in real, tangible, meaningful ways.
My thinking is that if you feel like you're really helping to create it (and believe me, they really are!), then you're apt to be all the more committed to it.
Secondarily, we DO have a plan to take this project commercial, so there's the prospect for financial gain and ownership in the company if we can get it that far (and if there's something to my marketing scheme). That's another point that may compel folks to stay.
The second big problem new companies like this run into is....money. Fundage. Specifically, burn rate. Companies get investment money, they sock it away and start creating like crazy, hoping that when they're done, they'll have something to sell (this relates back to my earlier point about companies being structured in such a way that many, if not most companies of this nature rely on incidental tee-shirt sales and THE NEXT GAME for the money to keep them doing what they do).
We're not gonna do it that way.
The trouble with too many of these companies is that their leadership arrogantly presumes that the "new economy" does not need the old. I recognize that the new *desperately needs* the old, especially in the entertainment business, which can be notoriously fickle at times.
Thus, my plan is to stop investing in my retirement fund at work, get rid of all the stuff in my own personal budget that I don't absolutely need, and pour my own funds into making this thing happen. Oh, I'm still shopping for investors (and have a few nibbles so far), but I think it sends a strong signal TO those investors that I'm willing to take chances with my own funds as well.
Specifically, I mean to jumpstart the company's income stream by investing in real estate (probably commercial real estate) to get us started....with the eventual goal being nothing short of generating sufficient funds from those investments to pay all our overhead costs (salaries, equipment, operating expenses) so that we can take as much time as we want CRAFTING the game.....that's my goal. Mixing the new economy (tech - specifically computer games) with the old (and you can't get much older and more established than real estate).
Marketing:
The initial game that we're crafting now is a scaled down version of the commercial release. All the essential components will be represented, but in a somewhat simplified fashion. And, it will be free. The early versions will be free to our test group, and the finished product will be made available for download on the company website (or, we'll burn a copy onto CD and ship it to you).
Free.
Total giveaway.
On the surface of it, that might appear to be patently insane.
I submit that it is not.
What we'll gain by doing that is twofold:
First, we gain a fan base. Why not take a chance on it? It's not like it's costing you anything? So...it's a good way to grow our fan base and get people talking about the game.
Second thing we'll get are LOTS of ideas. True, we've got some pretty firm plans in place for the commercial release. Some innovative ways of extending the work in the free version....stuff I've not seen in any computer game to date.
So, we take our ideas, the ideas of the fans, and the number of people playing the free version, and when we go to the money men with that in hand, and with a positive balance sheet, it seems to me that it'll be pretty simple to scare up some money to REALLY start doing it....
-=Vel=-
PS: And the biggest secret weapon we've got at our disposal is I'm a stubborn cuss....I'm not gonna give up on this idea...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Guynemer
|
|
The future of Firaxis?
Please, please, PLEASE let it be SMAC 2.
And I don't mean a Civ 2 --> Civ 3 type SMAC 2.
I mean a Civ 1 --> Civ 2 type SMAC 2.
Yeah, I know I'm threadjacking. Just had to get it off my chest.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TCO
|
|
Richmond, VA
Jan 1970
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Velociryx
Thank ya, GP! And not to worry...I'm dead serious about the project, and committed to making it work!
I studied economics in college (degree in econ, actually), thus my confidence in mixing new econ ideas with older, more established notions.
I think we've got a better than average chance at success....so far, the investors I'm talking to are intrigued....now, when we get this free version out to show them....then's when it'll get interesting@!
-=Vel=- |
OK. I'm going to help "push your thinking."
1. What makes you think you will make significant money in real estate speculation?
1.A. If you really can make money in real estate speculation, why weren't you doing it before? And why tie it to this venture. The tow have no synergy. It sounds more like a house of cards.
2. How much useful work will you get out of volunteers? Maybe you should think about different, more traditional models:
-"one man shop" until you get motion and can hire employees
-get other volunteers to invest
-sell future equity for specified amounts of work. (doubtful opn this one, unless you get people to work for you full time.)
BTW, I have no degree in econ but I have seen a lot of business as a management consultant at a top strat firm...
3. What make syou think your fan base will stay with you? The nature of the games market is quite transitory with a lot of movement of customers based on aging and based on willingness to try new stuff (not much loyalty).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-04-2002 10:29
I am good at being a straight man from time to time. 
|