Are you a publisher/distributor/film industry executive looking for leading creative developers, a developer looking for a strategic partner or a game trendsetter with an opinion...join this blog for weekly themed community discussions and featured surprise guest bloggers.....build a community and meet at GDC 2009 San Francisco and GDC 2009 Vancouver

In the Penalty Box: Post-GDC San Francisco

Thanks to all blog participants and readers who chimed in to The Puck Stops Here! and contributed to the fun and informative discussions. Stay tuned as we move the blog to Vancouver in the lead-up to GDC Canada in May. In the meantime, we invite you to post about your GDC San Francisco experience below!

Monday, January 12, 2009

Scarberia speaks from the penalty box

Scarberia:Scarberia has been an executive in and around the games business for almost 20 years, both in publishing and product development. "The reason for the pen-name is to protect plausible deniability in case I piss anyone too important off, since I still rely on them for deals, good gossip and expensive dinners...."

“For us in The Business, and of course by The Business, I mean, The Industry…”, Paul Schafer (Canadian), Late Show With David Letterman.

The Games Industry is huge. And despite all the bad economic news, we can still find positive reports about how the Industry is still growing, how it’s one of the only entertainment mediums with a positive future, how it has surpassed film box office receipts, blah, blah. But is this Industry really a Business anymore?

In order to thrive, a Business needs to have an eco-system of companies and contractors with a reasonable expectation that their investments of time and talents can result in profits. Everyone in a Business won’t and even shouldn’t make profits, of course, but most of the good ones will and should. Otherwise, they’ll do something else. And these profits will be the direct result of selling goods and/or services at a higher price than the costs that go into them. All very simple and, admittedly, simplistic.

Throughout the 1990’s, the Games Business was a great business. Lots and lots of people made money, some made obscene amounts. But without running the numbers, I would hazard that a healthy majority of that growing eco-system was making a good living. But this living wasn’t like the dotcom boom, when many people worked in ventures that had no chance of ever making profits, or even real revenue. The Games Business was making and marketing and selling games that people wanted, with costs that allowed good games to be blockbusters, and decent games to make a decent profit.

But with every new generation of hardware, this has gotten harder. The first big increase in costs was the shift from 2D to 3D, which required an expensive retooling and retraining of product development in the mid-90’s. The next was the rising necessity of supporting on-line features, first on the PC and later on the consoles. This was followed by dramatic growth in marketing budgets. And finally, with the arrival of the 360 and PS3, there was the requirement again to retool and retrain expensively for HD.

What this means is that even before the latest economic crisis, the Games Business has been struggling to make profits. In fact, without the sales from games on the previous generation hardware, which are now quickly disappearing, I calculate that hardly any publisher is making anything but losses. Of course we can all point to Nintendo and Blizzard and a couple others, but their exceptionalism proves the thesis. Ten years ago, only the lousy, the unlucky and the corrupt were losing money. Now it’s Microsoft (maybe making a small operating profit now for the first time), Sony, EA, THQ, Eidos, Midway, and nearly everyone else who are losing not just small, but very large amounts of money. This is not because they are all lousy, unlucky and corrupt. It’s because there is practically no Business in the Games Industry anymore.

Let’s look closer at some of the exceptions. Nintendo is the one true aberration and they’ve done it through innovation and a very tight control over their platform. Good for them, but the Wii isn’t helping hardly anyone else in the Games Business. In fact, without the DS, we wouldn’t have a global, profitable platform left for the independent publishers and developers.

How about Activision? With CoD4 in 2007 they had one of the only next gen titles to make lots of money; and with Guitar Hero they had one of the most profitable games in history. This was not an easy feat to repeat, and signs are that it didn’t happen at the same levels in ‘08. But thanks to the Blizzard deal, Activision looks to be the only independent publisher to have a plausible future that looks better than their past. What about Ubi? They’ve done an incredible job with a few quality games, but there’s a good argument to be made that most of their current and recent profits would disappear without the Montreal and Quebec subsidies. In other words, they have more in common with corn and sugar farmers than they do with being in a Business. And they are very, very good at what they do.

So where does that leave us? I’m sure all the publishers will keep hammering away at this generation of hardware, hoping that things will become more like the last cycle. And maybe it will. But if it eventually does, it will not be this year, and probably not even next because of the economy. They will also continue to look for THE NEXT BIG THING: mobile phone, casual, MMO, browser, free-to-play. There are isolated bits of success in all these categories, but little evidence that there’s a near-term, global Business model to make up for the profits disappearing through massive risk-taking on big titles with big marketing budgets that need to be big, big hits in order just to break even.

What this means for the development community, and the entire Games Industry eco-system, is decline. In fact, the Industry was probably already overbuilt three years ago. But it’s only now that those investments are showing that they will not be paying off any time soon. So there’s a long way to go backward before the new equilibrium. And even then, without some new big growth market, I’m not sure there’s enough business to be a “Business” again any time soon. We’ll remain an Industry, big and seemingly powerful, but a much duller, scared and miserly one.

And yet, what has been done is the creation of a medium. One that pound for pound still delivers the best entertainment value for the money. Games are not going away. In fact they’ve only just started. But we as an Industry may have tried to feed it too fast for its own good. Prepare for a rough diet.


2 comments:

Ryan Henson Creighton said...

Were you pressured to kick it all off with a quote from a Canadian? ;)

The fan ranks on the Joystiq boards and others are already muttering about the "death of hardcore gaming". i'm not sure why this comes as such a surprise. Every year, and with every new system, the expectations of gamers just grew and grew and grew. Each new blockbuster game had to be twice the scope, twice the length, as the last one. Yet game prices have only gone up $10 with this last generation of consoles. Is the solution to double the cost of games and pick development up at the same rate? i hope not.

i'm a lifelong gamer, and i run my own studio (Untold Entertainment Inc.). i have two young daughters now and, to use a requisite Canadianism, i can't be arsed to plod through an 80 hour game any more. It's cold comfort for AAA developers, but smaller, quicker hits of fun are what i seek to play and seek to create.

The last great example of this kind of quick hit was Wurdle on the iPhone:

http://www.untoldentertainment.com/blog/2009/01/05/wurdle-and-the-brilliance-of-done/

- Ryan

Post-IT! said...

We've just received a comment on this topic from Jason Della Rocca, the long-time executive director of the the International Game Developers Association (IGDA). Please note that these are his personal thoughts, and do not represent those of the IGDA:

Scarberia brings up a lot of interesting points in his(?) analysis of the current state of the game business, but first reaction I have is, “Who’s business are we talking about exactly?”

Thinking of the game industry as a complex ecosystem is a good one, but often the lions of business neglect to recognize the full spectrum of cohabitants within the same environment. To say that many of the big companies in the game industry are hurting right now is a no brainer. However, that’s a limited point of view that fails to recognize that games, as a medium, are more vibrant and interesting and broader than they have ever been – and, in fact, there are tremendous business opportunities for those willing and able to grab at them.

Scarberia seems to lament over how the business was so easy back in the day. Well sure, the good old days are over and now we’ve got to really earn it. Sticking with the ecosystem metaphor, it is indeed survival of the fittest. And, in the fast changing game industry, fitness is more directly correlated to the ability to adapt than corporate might per se.

A recent analysis from DFC looked at the profitability of publishers across the West, Japan and the rest of Asia. In summary, the Western publishers are growing revenue, but profitability has been taking a nose dive. Conversely, publishers in Asia (Korea in particular) who are more service oriented may not be grossing as much, but are maintaining decent profitability. In part, this is due to their abandonment of the old ways of doing business. Or more precisely, they never bothered to adopt the old ways to begin with.

Korean publishers, as we all know, were quick to exploit online subscription models and leverage game cafĂ© play, largely as a way to jump over the piracy hurdle. Now they are pioneering the micro-transaction model (aka “free-2-play”). And, it is through these innovations in business and distribution models that tremendous new value has been created. (No disrespect to Korean developers, but from a design/content point of view, they’ve essentially been cloning the West.) As game biz veteran Mitch Lasky recently echoed at the Game Business Law Summit, Western publishers have not given innovation in business/distribution models much attention.

And why would they? The EAs of the world are the entrenched players – the lions at the top of the food chain – that are now trapped by their own success. This dilemma is not unique the game industry, but is one that is faced by all successful businesses in a changing marketplace. In order to embrace new ideas fully, they must abandon their current revenue streams (e.g., selling discs in boxes at retail, or selling shooters to young males, etc). Thus, a dilemma between what works today and what will work tomorrow is created, along with the ensuing aversion to the risk of switching. To reiterate, it is the very success that got EA (and the other big publishers) to where it is, that is now holding it back. In short, it is a species that is overly optimized for the old ecosystem, and is now struggling to adapt.

And so, it is often left to the new players – or the existing ones that are most adaptable – to dive into the chaos and succeed. Again, largely by pioneering the business and distribution side of things.

Bigger is not always better, and blindly following the tech curve for tech’s sake is not the answer anymore (refer to the anemic horsepower of the Wii or the dominance of Flash online). True talent will always find a market – not because they deserve to, but because they’ve earned it.

Much like the failings of the music business to hold onto their monopoly of pressing CDs and pushing them to retailers, I’m not much interested in maintaining the status quo within the game “business”. The music “business” (i.e., selling CDs at retail) may be on its last gasps, but music on the whole is booming and exploding with countless opportunities for talented artists. If the current economic climate forces the game ecosystem to evolve a little more rapidly than some would hope for, well too bad. On the whole, I see that as a good thing for the evolution of games.