One invaluable source of information about the roles and practices with the games industry was the book: ‘The Business and culture of digital games: Gamework/ Gameplay’ (Kerr A, 2006, Sage Publications ltd). The book outlines several different areas within the games industry including key roles in a production team, production cycles and other general figures for designing games. Obviously due to the age of the book (printed in 2006), the figures are probably not quite accurate now as production values have spiralled massively.
To understand the practice of production in a games company, there are two different institutions which dominate that process: Developers and Publishers.
Developers are the actual producers of the game and concept. However the Publisher moves hand in hand with Developers as they are the funding behind each operation. Because of this arrangement, 3 types of development companies have emerged:
First-party developer – Fully integrated into the publisher to develop games in house
Second-party developer – Contracted by publishers to create games or concepts
Third-party developer – Independently construct projects to sell to publishers
The basic production process has several stages. A general plan of how long production cycle for the average console game, and how the team might expand in members across each stage of development was described in the book as:
5-15 Design 3 Months
Prototype 3 Months
15-25 Pre- Production 6 Months
25-40 Production 9 Months
Beta Stage 3 Months
[Source; Torc interactive, Page 80]
A big issue before at pre-production is negotiation between the publishers and developer. This can take many months due to the developer wanting to receive a good share of royalties and intellectual properties. Unfortunately the big problem is that for small developers is that Publishers will often push hard and present a poor deal:
‘’Look like you got an incredibly good deal the agent or publisher owns everything, owns the technology, owns IP, even though you have designed it yourself…effectively you have nothing, no assets in the organisation… you have just got the ability of the staff in your organisation. So you are a newbie and you are just glad to get a deal you tend to be asked to sign your life away and if … no-one else is competing for you then what are you gonna do? (Former employee of a publisher)’’
[Page 81]
While hard to explain via text, Aphra Kerr uses a clear and concise diagram to demonstrate some of the other processes taking place during each stage of Development:
Moving away from the traditional practices between the publisher and developer, Aphra Kerr uses information gathered to discuss the conventional roles within a development firm. Those Core roles are:
Producer
Associate Producer
Lead Level/Game Designer
Level Designer (4)
Lead Programmer
Engine Programmer (4)
Game Programmer (2)
Lead Artist
Concept Sub Artist (2)
Modelling Sub Artist (3)
Animation Sub Lead (2)
Texture Sub Lead (3)
Lead Audio
Engineer
Lead QA
QA
(Torc Interactive, communications, 2004)
[Page 88]
Game Designer – establish the look and feel of the game, designing core gameplay mechanics, levels, characters, environments and storylines.
Artists – 3D and 2D assets, lighting and cameras, and FMV sequence design
Programmers – animation, physics, AI, tool development, scripting and back end programming.
Producer- the producer’s job is mainly about managing the core elements of the project including scheduling and hiring. Often they will have to monitor other on-going situations which might influence or affect the project.
Quality Assurance – includes intense play testing and study of the intended ‘final product’ to make sure that it has little or no faults when released.
Of course, many larger companies use much more extensive and diverse teams – with more precise spins on those roles (Oblivion: World Artist), or create entirely new roles specifically for a game (Resident Evil 5 – Director).
Pulling back from the two key roles to look at the larger picture when it comes to production, The Business and Culture of Digital Games: Gamework / Gameplay, briefly outlines the basic statistics of game development across several platforms – including Console, Handheld and Pay Monthly games.
Console games - High cost, but with little or no service costs after production. On average take 18 months in production with average team size at about 12 – 40. Currently hardware oligopoly of Sony, Nintendo and Microsoft
Handheld games – Expensive, but little or no service costs. On average development takes 9 months with a team size of between 12 – 20. The market was monopolised by Nintendo however recently Sony and Apple have entered the market recently and created an oligopoly.
PC – They are less expensive to produce than Console and handheld games. The average development takes about 15 months with a team size of 12-15. The market isn’t concentrated like Handheld and console games.
Massively Multiplayer Online games – Very Expensive, with on-going costs. The massively multiplayer market has an Oligopoly of EA, Sony, Microsoft, NC soft and Vivendi.
Various different media have created Mini-games on platforms including on the internet, mobile phones and digital television. They each take a small team, cost and development time.
When it comes to the retail of any game, it is here where negotiations earlier in the project might alter a developer’s share of the profit, but in general the cost of any game is funnelled at a similar ratio into different organisations. Here is the general division of a games cost and those which benefit from it.
Console Sony, Nintendo 10
Manufacturer Microsoft
Developer EA, THQ 20
Distributer Centresoft 5
Retailer Wal-Mart 15
Consumer 50 euros
It was interesting to see that the manufacturer of a console and retailer takes a sizeable chunk of the overall price – and perhaps explained why many ‘indie’ games are often PC and sold online. By doing this they can keep the cost for the consumer low but remain ‘better off’ with 25 euros now being able to fund the developer. But, as with the Tale of Tales indie developer, many chose to try and cut the publisher out of the picture – generating even more profit. In doing this they can raise the profit per game from around £5 to double that (or more). The Path, a Tale of Tales key game, is priced on their website as about $10. By having cut out the publisher, retailer and Manufacturer (PC games do not have to pay the ‘console’ manufacturer (which often explains why PC games cost a chunk less than console games).
However this is understandable considering how a console game costing 2 million dollars would have to sell around 250,000 copies to generate a profit for a Development company using that above structure.
Clearly the practices of the games industry vary in nature. Many Publishers will drive smaller developers into deals which force them to take far less than they should for the production of a video game. However in being unbiased towards Publishers, given the high cost of production and long-time needed they shoulder much of the risk should the game fail, being the ‘purse strings’ of the industry. Although, it is more than that in a way as Publishers roles include general time management and often the advertising behind the game – as was the case with Blue Castle and Capcom. However, that said, one issue many have with working with the publishers is that should the game be hugely successful, developers are often forced into a situation whereby they have to keep making sequels and ‘spin offs’ (Bungie are an example of this). Other issues include the stifling of creative freedom, which has had consequences in the industry – including the forming of Lionhead Studios. Furthermore, many emerging games companies will stray from the commercial side of gaming to produce innovative games that are not forced sequels and mean that they get a fair share of the profits. Tale of Tales is a good example of this kind of Games Company.
‘‘As for the space marines, game development is schismatic. The developer ecosystem is varied and complex, but for our purposes we can discuss just two: those I call the AAAs and the Super-Indies. Two very different species, each catering to gamers and dealing with innovation differently.
‘AAA developers make games that often involve space marines. They have publishers and appear on Best Buy shelves. From them you rarely see a lot of innovation: if Guitar Hero was popular they make DJ Hero. If Wii was popular they make Move and Kinect. There is innovation in this space, but it’s often not the kind we usually define as “innovation,” or even the kind we like: control schemes, pricing models, social aspects. As far as traditional, less-Tolkien-fewer-space-marines innovation goes, in most cases AAAs take a single innovation and run with it, often to the point of absurdity. They may not want to, but AAA developers are beholden to corporate overmasters who are risk-averse and believe in doing what’s best for the bottom line. And the bottom line is that this model, while restrictive, is successful.
Super-Indies are something new. Spawned from traditional garage developers, they combine great talent, extraordinary networking, cunning marketing decisions, and the availability of digital distribution to make a living in a space where historically they couldn’t have. Their games are often smaller or simpler than commercial titles, but often much more innovative. A Super-Indie studio may be composed of a single savant doing all the work, or a team spread far flung around the globe. They may have never heard each other’s voices. Super-Indies don’t usually have publishers, define themselves fiercely by their freedom to create, and produce games like Minecraft, Sleep is Death, AI War, Solium Infernum, Love, Immortal Defense, Revenge of the Titans, Amnesia, and so on. We see a lot of uniqueness in story, in gameplay, in settings, and in mechanics here.’’
http://www.igda.org/culture-clash (M. Sakey, 2010, the future of cost)
Information sourced directly at points from The Business and Culture of Digital Games: Gamework/ Gameplay and also from their sources (each referenced in the post at relevant points).
No comments:
Post a Comment