[SoccerDude28]

I was reading EA says may buy more Ubi shares on the thumbs today and going through IGN's Adventures in Self-Publishing -- Freedom Force vs. the 3rd Reich and I thought, why doesn't every developer in the business that has the money today, publish their own games. I mean it is definitely lower risk to get a publisher to fund your game, but if you have enough of a reputation and know that your game is a massive phenomenon, why not take the risk and pay for all the expenses yourself. Irrational Games is taking that approach in FF: vs the 3rd reich and I was very impressed with their GM saying:

"Given the size and dedication of our fanbase, we knew that the last thing we wanted to do was a make a follow up to Freedom Force that tried to expand the market to casual gamers. To do so would have meant alienating our core fan base, something we refused to do. Freedom Force is always going to be a PC game for people who love strategy, RPG and heroes. It's not going to be for everybody. You know the old saw…"Try to please everybody, you end up only pleasing the marketing department."

and taking a new approach to self funding their own game. What do you guys think about this for all known and respected franchises out there.

[stepurhan]

I think it would be more expensive to self-publish because a large publisher has access to economies of scale. To press, package and distribute one game could become quite expensive for an individual or small group because they'd have to invest in the equipment or make the basis of one product. Big publishers have the production equipment (for say, colour printed boxes) already available and they can spread the cost of this over the wide variety of games they put out. Also they already have distribution channels set up so they can easily get games to market without having to get into individual negotiations with each different outlet.

It's a nice thought and it would quite likely lead to some good games (without the commercial pressure from publishers). Sadly, I just don't think the financial side of the equation makes it as practical as we'd like.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by stepurhan

I think it would be more expensive to self-publish because a large publisher has access to economies of scale. To press, package and distribute one game could become quite expensive for an individual or small group because they'd have to invest in the equipment or make the basis of one product. Big publishers have the production equipment (for say, colour printed boxes) already available and they can spread the cost of this over the wide variety of games they put out. Also they already have distribution channels set up so they can easily get games to market without having to get into individual negotiations with each different outlet.

It's a nice thought and it would quite likely lead to some good games (without the commercial pressure from publishers). Sadly, I just don't think the financial side of the equation makes it as practical as we'd like.

Well when Irrational is doing self publishing, they aren't dumping 3rd party publishers completely.

They still rely on third party publishers to distribute the game to retail stores, but what they rely on is:

1- self funding
2- self marketting and PR (word of mouth, fan sites, gaming magazines)
3- selling the game through an online store or a channel like steam
4- creating their own boxes.

I think Irrational have seen 400 thousand copies of FF being sold, but they get such a small portion of the overall sales, when they have to do customer support, patches etc... anyway. So they might as well get most of that amount themselves directly, while the publisher gets a very small piece of the pie. I think this is a solid direction for developers that have good franchises under their belt.

[Erwin_Br]

I think Valve is on the right way, with it's Steam technique. They don't need Sierra.

--Erwin

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

I think Irrational have seen 400 thousand copies of FF being sold, but they get such a small portion of the overall sales, when they have to do customer support, patches etc... anyway. So they might as well get most of that amount themselves directly, while the publisher gets a very small piece of the pie. I think this is a solid direction for developers that have good franchises under their belt.

I disagree, at least if that means that the game is sold over the internet (like Steam). That takes out a TON of people in the distribution chain. Granted, it's good for the publisher, but it's a serious blow to the economic system.

And it's not like the money they saved by a direct distribution from the publisher to the consumer will save the consumer money. Look at HL2 over Steam or the boxed copy from the Mall - it's like $5 cheaper, while the developer gets all the extra profit (which adds up to quite a bit) and saves the cost for the box and the media.

Sure, if a small developer goes this route, it's okay - they would often have a hard time finding a publisher anyway, and besides, they often sell their products at a rather low price - look at all the independant developers of adventures games, most of the games cost around $20 while a full price game is at least twice that price. But in the case of a giant like Valve whose stuff sells one way or the other, I'm strongly against it - especially if they charge basically the same price.

[After a brisk nap]

Because you don't want Valve to make money?

[Erkki]

Valve had to charge the same amount for Steam sales because their agreement with Vivendi didn't allow them to sell it cheaper than Vivendi does. Which makes sense. I bought the Steam version cause I wanted Valve to have my money rather than Vivendi.

One of Estonia's most popular and hated politicians recently wrote a 1000 page memoir book about the time when he was the prime minister and started selling it from his party's office cheaper than the price at which he sold it to bookstores.

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Because you don't want Valve to make money?

No, because I don't like the printing company (both box and disc), the distributors and the stores selling them to the consumer - plus the companies responsible for transportation - NOT making money.

Also, in the special case of Valve, I can't help but feeling that they tried screwing Vivendi over.

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Stalker

But in the case of a giant like Valve whose stuff sells one way or the other, I'm strongly against it - especially if they charge basically the same price.

What??? You'd rather the developer do 4 years of work, people in the company working till 2 AM in crunch time, to produce a game you like, and not get enough money out of it? Whereas the publisher does the minimum work, and reaps all the profit. Plus it encourages developers to be less dependent on publishers, and make better games. And also since there are less expenses as you said, developers can charge the consumer less. And me personally, I want every cent to go to Valve, coz they deserve it and they will spend that money to produce even better games for us.

[Jake]

Originally Posted by Stalker

Also, in the special case of Valve, I can't help but feeling that they tried screwing Vivendi over.

Probably a little bit, which is shady, but they did it because Vivendi/Universal has tried to royally screw Valve a couple times in the past (equally shady). The whole thing, then, is shady.

[Royal Fool]

One problem with publishers is that they usually don't pick up games unless they're given a proper demo or a good presentation of how the game will work, preferably as a playable prototype. This means that a developer has to self-fund their presentation demo to show off the game idea - and even then it's not certain that any publisher they show it to would bite.

Self-publishing a game is obviously very risky and requires lots of cash, but at least they'll cut down on the publisher expenses and milestone requirements. Ron Gilbert did an article on the typical production costs of a 2D adventure game these days:

The total cost for a 12 month project - including a standard 20% overhead for insurance, taxes, graft, paper-clips and a little rounding up - comes to:

Project Development Total: $950,000

Now, we can argue all day about how much we're paying people, whether someone is over or under payed, etc. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I know. My defense is that this comes from my direct experience in hiring people to do the exact same jobs. We can certainly save some money by hiring talented people with no experience, and that often works very well, but I'm assuming that at least half the people are experienced in the business.

I've kept the team pretty lean. It would be easy to dump the Producer, but that would be a huge mistake. A good and talented Producer is gold. We can also save a little money if the script or music is done by someone already on the team, but that will take them away from their other job and you have to ask yourself: are they really the best person for the task?

This cost is also just for development. If we're going to fully evaluate the prospects of a 2D point-n-click adventure in today's market, we need to think about marketing costs on top of development. Even if we use an established publisher, we're going to need to include this in order to evaluate the ROI (return on investment) that a publisher is going to look at.

[stepurhan]

Apologies to SoccerDude. When I first posted I missed the links in his original post (the perils of having to speed-read because of limited web-time). Now I've read the article on IGN and it really does sound like it's worked out which is good.

However, irrational were releasing a sequel to a game that already had a large fanbase (from the 400,000 or so sales of the original) The marketing part of the exercise was easier because they knew where to find the people that would be interested in buying their new game. While this shows a clear view of their target audience and how to reach them what would they do releasing a different sort of game? Would they be able to promote, say, an adventure game to that same community? The marketing would be a lot harder for such a game and, if you can't let your target audience know it's out there, it doesn't matter how fantastic a game you've made.

Good luck to them though. I hiope they do continue to do well in the future.

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by SoccerDude28

What??? You'd rather the developer do 4 years of work, people in the company working till 2 AM in crunch time, to produce a game you like, and not get enough money out of it? Whereas the publisher does the minimum work, and reaps all the profit. Plus it encourages developers to be less dependent on publishers, and make better games.

Without the publisher's funding, there wouldn't even be a game in the first place in most cases (though granted, there are some games that are finished without any outside financial help). Plus, publishers take care of all the pesky stuff like publicity and advertisement. Also, I'm not at all convinced that the saved money would actually lead to better games and not be wasted (John Romero and to a lesser degree Peter Molyneux spring to mind).

Granted, in the case of HL2, this was hardly needed - but if a new developer would come up with something like Steam for their new game (if they would get the funding somehow), they'd probably fail miserably, even if they managed to generate some interest somehow. Most games are bought by Joe Average from the shelf, not from hardcore gamers that eagerly await the release of Game X. Look at stuff like Matrix Reloaded - the "gamer" crowd knew from reviews that the game was, well, average at best, and all but the most hardcore Matrix fans avoided it or at least waited for it to go budget.
Still, the game was a bestseller thanks to the "COOL! A MATRIX GAME! DUDE, I'M SO GONNA BUY THIS!"-crowd.

And also since there are less expenses as you said, developers can charge the consumer less.

Let's put it this way - either, the saved money goes into above-average production values, or the game is noticeable cheaper (like the self-published adventure games I mentioned). Both is okay for the consumer. Though the distribution chain still takes a hit, and I'm not convinced this would lead to a better situation for the developer, since they'd most likely sell less copies (unless they can actually afford advertising and a regular distribution of the game in stores).

[SoccerDude28]

Originally Posted by Stalker

Without the publisher's funding, there wouldn't even be a game in the first place in most cases (though granted, there are some games that are finished without any outside financial help). Plus, publishers take care of all the pesky stuff like publicity and advertisement. Also, I'm not at all convinced that the saved money would actually lead to better games and not be wasted (John Romero and to a lesser degree Peter Molyneux spring to mind).

Well of course if you are a small developer, just setting into the new world of development, than you need a publisher. I'm not disputing that. But For larger developers with enough funding, taking a risk on a good title is worth the risk. You can still advertise and publicize, just not to the large degree like a game like Halo 2. And as far as distributing the games to stores, you can still do that with a publisher, but it will give the publisher far less control than if they payed for the whole game, including box art, manual, advertisements, funding etc...

I believe that publishers today have a lot to say in terms of the games being produced. That is why you have a slew of bad games and sequels being pumped. If the developer had more control, they would do what they like doing best, without pressure from the outside. And since they are getting most of the money themselves directly, they can cut a little on the price of the game, if they sell it online and still be very profitable.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Stalker

No, because I don't like the printing company (both box and disc), the distributors and the stores selling them to the consumer - plus the companies responsible for transportation - NOT making money.

Oh, those poor, poor middle men. Their dream of skimming some money off other people's work so cruelly smashed. My heart bleeds for them. No, really, it does.

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Snarky

Oh, those poor, poor middle men. Their dream of skimming some money off other people's work so cruelly smashed. My heart bleeds for them. No, really, it does.

Well, I always thought people having jobs and stuff was pretty cool, but apparently I'm mistaken and promoting unemployment is the way to go. After all, way more time to play video games!

[Intrepid Homoludens]

I'm gonna borrow a truism from the fashion industry and mod it for the games industry: You're only as good as your last collection game.

Evidently you have to look at it on a case-by-case basis. For Irrational, they clearly know and understand their market. By focusing specifically on their fanbase and their own uncompromised vision, it's at the expense of excluding any other potential market. Which means that the potential money made has a ceiling. They don't expect to make millions anymore, they accept this. They're depending on the reputation of their previous game.

If you're a fledgling developer it's trickier. You need to know what your market is and what other kinds of people might be drawn to your product. How to reach them? That's where publishers come in. But the publishers need to make money (and profit) as well, so they have their own ideas which may or may not conflict with yours. Big publishers tend to pay more attention to those devs who have a good great reputation, hence more potential sales and profits.

I doubt what Irrational is doing will become a long lived trend in the industry, mainly because it's become such a huge business. I'm all for publishers supporting more creative, original, and visionary games, but it's very difficult, partly because of how this industry has grown in the past several years. It's become so f#&king corporate like anything, and creativity, originality, and vision have been forgotten in favour of big name licenses, sequals, and movie tie-ins. Big mouthed people who most likely have never passionately played games have taken over, they have no intimate understanding and rapport with the games themselves. Remember that one company, Gathering Of Developers (GOD)? They had such noble intentions supporting bold new ideas but in the end they couldn't get their act together.

[Royal Fool]

Originally Posted by Intrepid Homoludens

It's become so f#&king corporate like anything, and creativity, originality, and vision have been forgotten in favour of big name licenses, sequals, and movie tie-ins. Big mouthed people who most likely have never passionately played games have taken over, they have no intimate understanding and rapport with the games themselves.

Just like the movie industry - guys in suits with cash in their pockets walk onto the shooting location/development offices and demand to see the current state of the film/game. Then they make some stupid remarks about said project and 'recommend' (Read: "Do this or I'm cutting your funding/firing you/having you moved to another facility") some changes. Then the film/game is later released and panned by critics, much to everyone's surprise.

[After a brisk nap]

Originally Posted by Stalker

Well, I always thought people having jobs and stuff was pretty cool, but apparently I'm mistaken and promoting unemployment is the way to go. After all, way more time to play video games!

Employing people is great, but not through deliberate inefficiency. If the money goes to the developer instead, they can hire more people. Those people will be doing something useful (making the games that make the money), instead of just scrabbling for a cut.

Yes, a publisher does provide some functions that are genuinely valuable. However, functions that are no longer necessary due to modern technology should be eliminated because they are wasteful.

If I make a game, record an album, write a book, develop a software application, or whatever, are you seriously suggesting that I have a moral responsibility to pay a bunch of people to distribute it for me, if I don't need them? If I can do it more cheaply and efficiently myself?

[Stalker]

Originally Posted by Snarky

If I make a game, record an album, write a book, develop a software application, or whatever, are you seriously suggesting that I have a moral responsibility to pay a bunch of people to distribute it for me, if I don't need them? If I can do it more cheaply and efficiently myself?

That example isn't too great, since in all cases but the software you'd still have to go the normal route (have the stuff printed, distributed and sold in stores - yeah, there's ebooks, but compared to "real" books, they're an absolute minority), even if you can insure that you sell as many copies as you would sell using a publisher. And no, it doesn't hurt too much if a handfull of companies to that.

But look at things like Amazon. Is it easier than ordering a book from your local bookstore? Sure. But if everyone bought books that way, a million bookstores would have to close down. And "thanks" to Amazon working so effeciently and the ordering process being basically automated, it's not like all those lost jobs could be remedied by employing the people at amazon or something. Less people with a job means less people buying stuff overall, which leads to a hurting economy.