really need to have some sort of law or regulation or something that allows developers not to get fucked by their publishers. it sucks because if you want your game out there, you need your publisher to back you. and publishers have no interest in what gamers want, they are in it for the money.
seriously, fuck square enix right now. I hope they wake up and start giving their developers more creative freedom.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50987006]really need to have some sort of law or regulation or something that allows developers not to get fucked by their publishers. it sucks because if you want your game out there, you need your publisher to back you. and publishers have no interest in what gamers want, they are in it for the money.
seriously, fuck square enix right now. I hope they wake up and start giving their developers more creative freedom.[/QUOTE]
well the publishers legally are able to influence the development of a game because it is their money and property. A publisher is investing when it contracts a dev team to makes a game and since it's the publisher's money it's their say on what should be done with it.
[editline]1st September 2016[/editline]
of course devs can negotiate and fight with the publishers, but ultimately the publisher has the final say
[QUOTE=ElderLolz;50987056]Why do I dislike that guy so much[/QUOTE]
He makes great points, his presentation and entire gimmick is pretty silly though.
[editline]1st September 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=cdr248;50987040]well the publishers legally are able to influence the development of a game because it is their money and property. A publisher is investing when it contracts a dev team to makes a game and since it's the publisher's money it's their say on what should be done with it.
[editline]1st September 2016[/editline]
of course devs can negotiate and fight with the publishers, but ultimately the publisher has the final say[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's fair on the developers who want to make their vision of a game but the publishers don't agree on it or try to find ways to milk as much money as they can. Developers should be given more creative freedom.
His gimmick is such an over the top caricature I don't see how anybody can see it as anything other than him 100% taking the piss. He literally presents himself as somebody who thinks he's the messiah. If you think he's at all serious about it I don't know what to say.
[QUOTE=redBadger;50987006]really need to have some sort of law or regulation or something that allows developers not to get fucked by their publishers. it sucks because if you want your game out there, you need your publisher to back you. and publishers have no interest in what gamers want, they are in it for the money.
seriously, fuck square enix right now. I hope they wake up and start giving their developers more creative freedom.[/QUOTE]
Publishers need to step in when the development goes off the rails.
[I]Freelancer[/I] is one prime example of this. The studio was hemorrhaging money and was months behind schedule for release. When Microsoft took over, they cut back on Chris Robert's crazy list of features to actually get the product out in a reasonable time frame.
On one hand, I understand that publishers have the right to control what they publish. I also understand the need for putting their foot down on projects that start to get way too ambitious and take up too much time or money.
But on the other hand, some publishers seemingly have [I]no fucking clue[/I] what people actually like in games, partly because they don't even actually like games themselves. They get in this circle of "we can't try anything [I]new[/I], other people aren't doing anything new so we're not sure if something new would sell! We can't even make anything that has a relatively unique style!" So most stuff released is bland. (Hell, that goes for movies too.)
And if their developer [I]is[/I] trying to make something new or unique, they'll come in and stomp on it until it looks like shit. See: Overstrike vs Fuse.
Oh, but if something [I]does[/I] make a new trend: "Some new trend came out! Quick, we need to get in on this trend that already has someone firmly at the top of the market! Surely this trend will still exist and have no other competitors when our game comes out in 5 years." See: WoW clones, MOBAs, Class Based Shooters, Survival games. There [I]are[/I] a few success stories of a game successfully taking over a trending market, like Overwatch, but that's [I]rare[/I]. Sure, not everything will end up like Battleborn either, and these games can have their own okay-sized communities, but I'm sure neither the publisher nor the consumer base want "eh, there's a couple thousand people playing." I mean, it's healthy to have a variety of games, so it's not like you're stuck with one choice and one choice only. On the other hand, it's best if this variety of games actually - you know - [I]varies[/I].
And if your game [I]does[/I] happen to take a trend and make a twist on it so that it's essentially new: "well, we've GOT to have microtransactions or pointless DLC!" Which ends up driving down sales. See: Evolve.
Then there's cases where they push a developer to be ambitious, and know it's going to be an ambitious project, but then get upset when the ambitious project is - surprise! - ambitious. cough konami cough
[QUOTE=Mort Stroodle;50987399]His gimmick is such an over the top caricature I don't see how anybody can see it as anything other than him 100% taking the piss. He literally presents himself as somebody who thinks he's the messiah. If you think he's at all serious about it I don't know what to say.[/QUOTE]
It may be an obvious character, but that doesn't make it any easier to stomach.
[QUOTE=Last or First;50987885]On one hand, I understand that publishers have the right to control what they publish. I also understand the need for putting their foot down on projects that start to get way too ambitious and take up too much time or money.
But on the other hand, some publishers seemingly have [I]no fucking clue[/I] what people actually like in games, partly because they don't even actually like games themselves. They get in this circle of "we can't try anything [I]new[/I], other people aren't doing anything new so we're not sure if something new would sell! We can't even make anything that has a relatively unique style!" So most stuff released is bland. (Hell, that goes for movies too.)
And if their developer [I]is[/I] trying to make something new or unique, they'll come in and stomp on it until it looks like shit. See: Overstrike vs Fuse.
Oh, but if something [I]does[/I] make a new trend: "Some new trend came out! Quick, we need to get in on this trend that already has someone firmly at the top of the market! Surely this trend will still exist and have no other competitors when our game comes out in 5 years." See: WoW clones, MOBAs, Class Based Shooters, Survival games. There [I]are[/I] a few success stories of a game successfully taking over a trending market, like Overwatch, but that's [I]rare[/I]. Sure, not everything will end up like Battleborn either, and these games can have their own okay-sized communities, but I'm sure neither the publisher nor the consumer base want "eh, there's a couple thousand people playing." I mean, it's healthy to have a variety of games, so it's not like you're stuck with one choice and one choice only. On the other hand, it's best if this variety of games actually - you know - [I]varies[/I].
And if your game [I]does[/I] happen to take a trend and make a twist on it so that it's essentially new: "well, we've GOT to have microtransactions or pointless DLC!" Which ends up driving down sales. See: Evolve.
Then there's cases where they push a developer to be ambitious, and know it's going to be an ambitious project, but then get upset when the ambitious project is - surprise! - ambitious. cough konami cough[/QUOTE]
Most of those are developer decisions
Most of the times the publisher intervened in a project, it's because the developer went over budget or didn't complete a milestone in time.
Which is a fair point to intervene tbh, you gave them the time and money to do a thing, and they didn't do the thing.
[QUOTE=ElderLolz;50987056]Why do I dislike that guy so much[/QUOTE]
He looks like /v/ personified.
I'd take him more seriously if he dropped the persona.
[QUOTE=ElderLolz;50987056]Why do I dislike that guy so much[/QUOTE]
I really like him. He's articulate and his views are pretty well synced up with my own. Plus he's often managed to persuade me when they weren't. I like his silliness, it puts things in perspective a bit i.e. it's just videogames not international politics.
That would explain why the story ended so abruptly, just as it was getting interesting and why there was only one boss fight. Pretty fucking disgraceful.
[QUOTE=Gray Altoid;50988178]It may be an obvious character, but that doesn't make it any easier to stomach.[/QUOTE]
Then don't watch it. Hell, just open a new tab and listen to it. You'll hear all his good points without the silly suit and background
[QUOTE=redBadger;50990270]Then don't watch it. Hell, just open a new tab and listen to it. You'll hear all his good points without the silly suit and background[/QUOTE]
This.
Or, you know, [U]just skim through the Youtube video until you get past the gimmick.[/U]
Doing this has made Jim Sterling and Angry Joe (to an extent because he likes to put gimmicks in the middle of his reviews) so much more tolerable for me.
I really don't get the complaints. It's not like the video is a live stream and you have to sit through the gimmick.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
