Jason Rubins DICE 2004 Speech
polycounter lvl 14
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1876636950994293221#
Some of you might not have seen that back then and since it was quite a controversial speech, I thought it'd be neat to re-post it.
I think there's still some value to it - it's been 6 years since then. Have things really changed?
I like Rubin, Jaffe and all those other outspoken developers. We should talk more about our business, more about the industry and if it's just to learn from each other. The market definitely has become much broader and independent games have gotten a huge boost with those guys actually often times making a lot more money than developers at big studios do. The publishing business has changed quite a bit, even down to how games are being distributed. Still, it's fascinated how much of what was true back then still applies today.
Some of you might not have seen that back then and since it was quite a controversial speech, I thought it'd be neat to re-post it.
I think there's still some value to it - it's been 6 years since then. Have things really changed?
I like Rubin, Jaffe and all those other outspoken developers. We should talk more about our business, more about the industry and if it's just to learn from each other. The market definitely has become much broader and independent games have gotten a huge boost with those guys actually often times making a lot more money than developers at big studios do. The publishing business has changed quite a bit, even down to how games are being distributed. Still, it's fascinated how much of what was true back then still applies today.
Replies
I would also be interested in knowing what's happened since then. Is there any developer's guild nowadays that he mentioned?
"Just days after making a controversial speech at 2004’s D.I.C.E. Summit that criticized publishers for not recognizing and promoting talent responsible for creating games[4], Rubin publicly announced his departure from Naughty Dog"
and from this article: http://www.gamespot.com/news/2004/03/09/news_6091064.html
The guy took a major risk and put his neck on the line to make some bold statements and accurate perceptions publicly known. I think there is a lot of fear involved in this industry because there is so much uncertainty and it feeds up the chain from artists, programmers, leads, to developer heads, and publishers. Fear that the product won't sell, fear that you could be replaced if not in line with trends and tech, fear that your publisher may pull out or your product is too risky. There needs to be more risk involved and more people putting their neck on the lines to really push the boundaries of games.
Is there risk already? Of course there is, but it all comes down to bottom lines for everybody, and sometimes, a lot of times, the developers know their audience a lot better than the publishers (I refer here to publishers thinking their brand/name means something to their audience out of Rubin's speech). Media itself may hype something up or down, but which media should you trust? I think the debacle that happened at Atomic Games is a very prime and fairly recent example of the risks developers should be taking and the opposite of how publishers should react to some disgraced public concerns. There needs to be more trust and more respect. They had a very awesome title on their hands that IMO would have sold extremely well. They were not selling a title to the people that were throwing their arms in the air, they were selling it to gamers! And to be honest, what would normally be perceived as "bad publicity", in IMO, was GOOD PUBLICITY! They would in turn be making a lot of gamers aware of something that is controversial to some people, and guess what!?! THEY WOULD HAVE BOUGHT THE SHIT! They would have wanted to see what was so controversial about it, and in the end, learned and experienced something that most games don't accurately portray. Konami could have backed them up, stood by them and boosted the title further by showing their commitment to the trust they had in Atomic. The irony of it all is that we have loads of warfare games that cover very brutal battles in our history, yet because the media hyped this title down because it was so fresh on everyone's mind, the publisher got scared, and all was lost (not entirely of course). See more about the title, controversy, and actions before/after the developer drop at this link. http://www.joystiq.com/2010/03/31/status-update-six-days-in-fallujah-with-atomic-games-president/
And I am in no way associated with Atomic or anyone at their studio. I know of a few people that work there, but that is the extent of it.
There needs to be a much greater respect for the people that make them a huge return. Anything they can do to further the growth of their developer is an investment that needs to be taken to ensure the growth of their publishing firm.
I may be totally off base here, and if I am, by all means, feel free to set me straight. I am in no way saying I know exactly what I am talking about, just bringing some things to the table for discussion.
I totally agree that artists and creatives undervalue themselves and their products. We're all a bunch of insecure idiots who are happy just to eat re-hydrated noodles in exchange for a the monumental effort we put into a product we hardly get to call our own. I agree that change will have to come from the trenches and I think it has started. People are rethinking the publisher model and even though it looks good on paper its pretty sick and limping along. A lot of studio heads sold them some poison pills, here's a name and a brand, I'll see ya later, I'm taking my team from Ninja Pie and forming Monkey Ninja Pie.
The publisher model is faltering because people with big ego's insist on big parties and big salaries which is 60% of his rant, he wants more of that for himself... sigh... instead of taking care of business. Talent walks if you don't take care of it, they're finding that out the hard way.
If you don't like how the publisher spends their marketing money on the game you made for them, then don't use them. Go crank up your own PR machine and invite yourself to all of your parties.
Did his speech help? Not really, the publishers went "shit they're onto us, quick hire that Kotick guy or some dick face like him".
Changes happened. Not so much due to industry reforms but progress in tech and media.
There's more visibility of devs in the mass media thanks to sites like youtube, gametrailers, kotaku, twitter, etc. where it's effective from a marketing standpoint to have dev team members talk about their product themselves. You don't have to wait and buy the game to see the special features. Devs like Blizzard and Insomnia even have their own internally produced podcasts where the "talent" discuss about their involvement.
So in the sense of D.I.Y....devs big and small have more opportunities to be proactive when it comes to exposure, marketing, looking for investors.
If that's what you got out of it, I'm not sure we watched the same video. The whole point of that reference was showing how games marketing uses celebrities who have nothing to do with games to help market them, as if they are a packaged-goods product. But when was the last time you saw them do that with a film? They use the involved talent itself to market a film, not otherwise unattached celebrities. They don't use Tara Reid to endorse films she doesn't star in. They don't use Michael Phelps to promote a new buddy movie. But apparently they do use Tara Reid to promote games, as if any gamer cares about her endorsement.
When his ego isn't taking centerstage he makes some great points.
I totally agree with him that if you don't stand up, take control, and walk away, you have very little right to complain about how things are run. I've said that before about artists working for asshole companies. But it undercuts one of his main points "I don't like how publishers spend THEIR PR marketing money". Then spend your own money or shut up and realize you're not the one calling the shots, when you let someone else spend their money.
He who has the money calls the shots. If they thought it was worth their money to promote some geeky awkward developer instead of the brand then they would do that. They can lock up a brand or ship to someone else to work on. They can't do that so easily with actual people. As an artist/developer you can't demand from a publisher that they spend money promoting you personally instead of the actual product they're selling.
He freely admits that dev's don't always make the best face for product. They also don't have to pay diva prices if they don't put money into making divas.
No, it's he who has the power that calls the shots. Usually money means power, but when it comes to making a best-selling game, talent makes a much bigger difference than money. There are countless examples of publishers throwing millions upon millions into total flops. There are also examples of very talented groups with little funding making a hit game. Talent is the power, not money.
Why "instead of"? You're creating a false dichotomy, not to mention presenting a false choice. One's abilities as a developer determine the product, that's why people do care about who makes a film and are starting to care about who makes a game.
Talent goes no where without money to make the vision come to life. I agree that its in developers best interest to be independent from publishers, it gives them more control and a bigger share of the profits if there are any. But if you sit down at their table and think you can demand how things are going to go, they'll teach you something.
I'm the first guy I know that stands up and cheers when any developer decides to self publish. Its what my company does, and it has some HUGE advantages. But in the case he presents he wants people to still play the publishers game but just try to needle them into giving devs more power, when its in their best interest to never let that happen.
It's like a renter thinking "damn I need to stop paying rent and become a land lord" and instead of working themselves into a position to own property and break free of the cycle, they just go down to the land lord and say "hey treat me like your boss, I pay a tiny portion of your salary, rub my kankles bitch." Then they're shocked when they come home and the locks are changed.
If you're going to play their game, play it the best you can but don't think they're going to fall all over themselves building you up like they would a brand. Celebs are brands unto themselves because they are the only person that owns their face/persona. Right or wrong publishers think that once a brand is established it can be maintained by anyone. I totally don't agree with that, but that's another way they operate. Its how they get around paying diva prices.
Publishers buy into brands not developers. Good thing too, otherwise they would see the Achilles heal in the "build a studio, sell it to a pub, strip it of talent, start a new studio, sell them another brand and keep going"
And games aren't hollywood, we shouldn't compare ourselves to hollywood. and to be honest I don't think we should try and be hollywood jr. Let a studios work get them the recognition they deserve. It worked for Blizzard, Valve, and a handful of others. They have created brands by themselves because of their excellent work.
Though he certainly was spot on with a few things. I hate seeing publisher use celebs to promote a game. It's like the spike video game awards. Kind of sucks to see a celeb accept an award for best game just because they did a couple lines of voice work. Though I'm not so sure I like the idea of celebrity game developers.
And he nailed it when talking about contract work per project instead of internal employees. It sure is heading that way.
People are creating stuff via their talent without money at an every day basis, but the people with the money can just sit on it and do nothing.
Studios need the money yes, but the talent is what is the most important.
I think you're very wrong on this one. I think if publishers fail to see the change in the market happening right now, they'll dig their own graves, doesn't matter how big they are at the moment.
Let's take Minecraft as an example. Great great game, it was done without any publisher help, Persson didn't take any money from a publisher, nor did the game get promoted in any way, shape or form. Yet, simply through word of mouth he sold over 500.000 copies.
Now, what if a publisher would've jumped in at some point and helped the developer actually promoting the game and investing into it so that the developer could've hired more talent sooner and just focus on the actual development? The idea should be that the publisher helps the developer to sell 5.000.000 units across all platforms instead of 500.000 - and then they split the money. Good business for everbody.
The talent needs the publisher as much as the publisher needs the talent, yet because that money argument has been true up until very recently (he who has the money controls the shots), the publisher was able to dick the developers around. I think that's simply going to change by developers a) helping each other (indieFund, etc.) and b) having the advantage of digital distribution on their side. Yet, I do think there are publishers out there that see this change happening and are actively helping those people achieving success.
Looking at Castle Crashers, Braid, Limbo, Minecraft, Super Meat Boy etc., all of those games were made without any publisher help and all of those games sold or are going to sell in the case of SMB hundreds of thousands of copies. Now, these still aren't AAA numbers of course - but where a AAA game costs 40mio to make, these games cost 200-500k to make. It shouldn't be a war or a dictatorship now - it should be two parties where each party uses its expertise to make the most out of the given product.
Him getting canned shortly after the speech is probably an indicator that he was right. But what seems strange to me, is that Naughty Dog by that time was a fully owned Sony studio for 3 years, but he always sounded like they were independent.
Thanks for the post, thomasmahler, that was a very interesting(and usefull I hope) speech!
Our industry has worked more like the music industry. Labels cough up huge cash advances to artists who burn though that cash making albums. As the profits start to roll in the artists are stuck paying back all that money. If they're lucky they make more than they owe. If they were smart they never took all that much money up front. The really smart artists control their brand completely instead of letting the label control everything.
I point to Infinity Ward as an example of giving up control in exchange for getting the game finished. They needed cash, they got it but they had to give up control to get it and it tore them apart trying to get that control back.
What he wants to have happen, will happen. Just not with publishers coughing up cash to build rock stars. Developers will have to raise their own funds and manage their own brands if they want that status. In a way its how its always worked.
Those that keep control, get to control where the cash goes.
Something nobody seems to be discussing is what happens when you "stand up" in this industry. We've made it a priority to eventually embarrass and disgrace people who stand up and try to put a "face" on our industry.
The people working in films, the gaffers, and the stunt people, and so on, don't go on some "kill them all" style tirade when all the credit goes to the director and the stars. That's because those people understand that nobody wants to connect with "Paramount", they connect with the talent; and those people stay employed cuz the studio does well.
In our industry, someone like "Chris Roberts" get a modicum of fame, and the entire damn gaming community and industry turn on them violently until they're forced away.
There are huge benefits to changing the focus over to the talent; but I can see very plainly that the industry and the audience forces anyone talented and well known to walk an impossibly thin line; or it's off to the mines with you.
The ego problem is with the gaming culture, not the exec's who know full well that when they lift a developer up, the other developers/publishers and community will eventually smack them down, HARD.
What's that guy up to nowadays, since he left ND?
The industry itself seems to be taking a notice of this as well. THQ in particular is snapping people like crazy; Itagaki, Del Toro, Patrice Desiltes it would be silly of them not to use their names as a marketing tool. But there are more examples; Bethesda buys Mikami, Atlus uses Hashino, Soejima and Meguro to market Catherine,Cliffy B premieres GeoW 3 on Jimmy Fallon and Bioshock Infinite is hailed as Ken Levine's brain-child.
If you need further proof just see the trailer for Shadows of The Damned and notice how prominently names of Suda, Yamaoka and Mikami are displayed.
More so, whenever the game is discussed by the press it's described as a work of a super-group of game developers. It's the same tactic that music industry used to market such groups as Cream, Emerson Lake and Palmer or Nick Cave and the Bad seeds.
You might say that this is in no way proof that industry is taking this direction; and you might be right. You might say that we always had people like Kojima, Miyamoto, Sid Meier, Molyneux and Will Wright; and you will be perfectly right.
However, keep in mind that all examples I mentioned are from the mere past few months - and it doesn't look like this trend is going to stop anytime soon. It might be my imagination going wild, but I truly believe that this trend won't stop anytime soon.
Whether this is good or bad is a completely different question. But, if it brings the resources and creative freedom to people such as Fumito Ueda or Jenova Chen then all the better.
Edit:
Todays post on Gamasutra seems to support my impression that THQ's tactic will involve using the talented people as means to sell games.