Wolfire Games Forums

For sake of discussion (Because you told me to) I'll link something that ought to make SOMETHING come out this:
http://tabtimes.com/feature/tablet-game ... -criticism

Also previous Discussion link: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=24558

I found this: http://kotaku.com/5925083/an-insider-fr ... -right-now

Also this: http://kotaku.com/we-dont-just-need-bet ... -476922292

This too: http://games.slashdot.org/story/09/10/2 ... -necessary

(I personally don't like this subject, but what you want, what you get)

Also a wiki entry: "Because the publisher usually finances development, it usually tries to manage development risk with a staff of producers or project managers to monitor the progress of the developer, critique ongoing development, and assist as necessary"

That sounds like a way of saying: "DO WHAT WE SAY" or at least it can be.

It also gives the impression that they could simply leave a project that goes south.

I recall thinking at one time that publishers handle getting products released, but that may be something else.

Edit: Fixed:

Added: Seriousness.

WHY

I am not disappointed.

Well this ended quickly...

/thread
on to discussion #3

Are people just waiting for me to stick out my opinion?

Fine

PUBLISHERS SUCK

Discuss.

Providing a thread title isn't enough. It's supposed to be informative. I'm disappointed. It wouldn't be that hard to Google some facts once a month...



Publishers pay for developers, that's good. It lets devs make games without having to pay everything from their own pockets. Basically backers, investors, business partners.
Publishers want to make money. Publishers don't want to spend too much money. That's human. That's also what most game devs want, at least to some degree.

Sometimes publishers limit game devs. That's sometimes bad, sometimes good. For example, some games don't get money. On the other hand, read Masters of Doom and Ion Storm's story - designers without limits or production help fail more often than not. When they don't you admittedly can get Deus Ex. If you are unfamiliar with the story, imagine kickstarter-funded game projects - lots of potential, but most of them fail.

Publishers also usually handle marketing. Very nice!

Also things are different know. Steam has changed things. Indies are back, after disappearing in the late 90s or so, and now they have easier time reaching customers. Niche games are doing well. Casual audiences have suddenly appeared.

Also, you should link to previous thread(s) from the first post.

I do hope that you would take this a bit more seriously. This has a chance to be really, really good for the community. Once a month or so would be a good pace, I think, and putting in some initial work isn't going to take THAT long.

Fixed:

Added a small summary of my research.

Sorry guys, this was really sudden, I was essentially working on this 5 minutes so I could do something outside of this.

I WAS hoping you guys could start the discussion without me.

Thanks, that's much better.

Publishers do handle the release and marketing, that's what indies and companies who can finance their own development also migh t have a contract with a publisher.

Also, yes, publishers can leave if a project isn't looking good. The developer still gets compensation for the development, but the game never gets finished or released. In fact, in an extreme case, a publisher may decide that the finished game won't sell so it's not released. A finished game. Because marketing and such are expensive, and printing CDs or DVDs and packaging used to be a big factor too.

Of course those games are covered by NDAs, so the devs can't talk about the specifics, or show what they did. I've heard that it's extremely demoralising.

I always thought that Publishers should just handle publicity and advertisement and getting it released.

While they do that, they can fund development and have the fate of a game in their hands

I'll link a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h3pt9wwEzic

Some did not get released because no one would Publish them.

Also, I feel like having a publisher is unimportant, if it was then Indie (Independent if I recall) wouldn't do as good as they are doing now.

Also, some publishers, are EVIL.

(EA maybe...)

Note: put emphasis on the word EVIL, it's still a serious post.

Endoperez wrote:Also, yes, publishers can leave if a project isn't looking good. The developer still gets compensation for the development, but the game never gets finished or released. In fact, in an extreme case, a publisher may decide that the finished game won't sell so it's not released. A finished game. Because marketing and such are expensive, and printing CDs or DVDs and packaging used to be a big factor too.

Of course those games are covered by NDAs, so the devs can't talk about the specifics, or show what they did. I've heard that it's extremely demoralising.

This is something that's bad for everyone in my eyes. Why would a publisher want legal protection for something they don't want to release themselves? They don't want to be associated with it? They don't have to, if someone else releases it. Regardless of how finished the product is, if it's not happening, why would you legally bury it so that nobody can release it?
I understand that up until the point of cancellation, the publisher has invested money and possibly also some marketing into the product, but once it's been established that they won't make any profit out of it, what good does it do to disallow anyone else from doing so?

atomtengeralattjaro wrote:what good does it do to disallow anyone else from doing so?

It's not this, exactly. It's 'does allowing others to do something with this help the publisher in any way?' And the answer is no.

It's of course an immense failure. It would'be been better to cancel the game much earlier, before so much money, time and effort was put into it.

The thing is, releasing and marketing a game costs a lot - so much so that not releasing a game is actually a financially sound decision. For physical media, having 100k DVDs in cardboard boxes, not selling, in a warehouse somewhere, that's going to be expensive. Releasing and marketing a big game can cost as much as the costs of the whole multi year development!

Look what I found! Numbers!
Http://kotaku.com/how-much-does-it-cost ... 1501413649

Endoperez wrote:

atomtengeralattjaro wrote:what good does it do to disallow anyone else from doing so?

It's not this, exactly. It's 'does allowing others to do something with this help the publisher in any way?' And the answer is no.

I get that. But does doing something that doesn't help you in any way but doesn't cost you any more money hurt you as a company?

atomtengeralattjaro wrote:

Endoperez wrote:

atomtengeralattjaro wrote:what good does it do to disallow anyone else from doing so?

It's not this, exactly. It's 'does allowing others to do something with this help the publisher in any way?' And the answer is no.

I get that. But does doing something that doesn't help you in any way but doesn't cost you any more money hurt you as a company?

Maybe. If people play the free game, maybe they won't buy other games. To be honest, I didn't ask why that game was shelved, I just know that it happens sometimes.