Jimquisition: The Unholy Trinity Of Blind Greedy Bastards

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT
 

The Unholy Trinity Of Blind Greedy Bastards

Only three videogames in the world exist, according to those who now get to make all the videogame decisions. The blind lead the blind, and ignorance reigns supreme.

Watch Video

The video isn't loading for me.

If Escapist doesn't win, I'll buy you the shoe.

Luckily we've still got some developers trying something different!
Oh, and Jim, may I applaud you for your new background? It looks great!

Mr Sterling

1) You really should go see Captain America 2. It was so much fun while still being mentally engaging.

2) I do feel that you may be exaggerating just a touch. From my observations, while they are from outside the window of the industry, AAA companies seem to be aware of a bit more than just those three. I'm not suggesting they aren't a bunch of lemmings without the artistic backbone to give new things a try, just that they have a bit more of a bland palette to work with then you're suggesting they do.

I want to know how this happened. How is it that people who know nothing about video games ended up running video game companies?

That almost seems like some twisted April Fools joke, not reality. It's frankly maddening to think that this is the thought process for these people. I mean, can't they see the numbers for any other game like XCOM: Enemy Unknown or Amnesia and think "if we do that we'll make all the money?". Square Enix did, right?

Edit: Cue all the people using this as a justification for CoD killing the industry as well.

Not that anything you said hasn't been said before, by you, but it clearly bears repeating as the target audience hasn't picked up the fucking hint already.

Jim, you of course realise you'll now be receiving hundreds of shoes in the mail, right? Might be worth putting an addendum just so you can at least get shoes in the right size.

Damn, that's a quality backdrop. And I've voted for The Escapist, although I fear you shall have to continue with just the one shoe Jim, Twitch is too strong D:

As for the episode, I'm not sure how telling it is that I hadn't even heard of one of the games before the video (Clash of Clans)

canadamus_prime:
I want to know how this happened. How is it that people who know nothing about video games ended up running video game companies?

It happened when games publishers became market-listed and the concept of shareholder value moved in. Just as in every other industry the very second this happens the highest goals of a company aren't quality and sustainability anymore but... Well... The shareholder value. And because the artists and technicians who are actually making games can't be trusted to squeeze every last penny out of everything like blood from a stone a different kind of people was put in charge.

Can't say I'm surprised. The town where I went to high school was full of upper-middle class/lower-upper class white folk with very nice, cushy six, or even seven, figure jobs. I went to school with a student whose parent worked in marketing for entertainment products, like videogames and movies. I remember that he knew almost no other movies that came out within the past three years except for Avatar, and no videogames besides Call of Duty and Grand Theft Auto, and only knew about Grand Theft Auto because of the "think of the children!" types who want games banned. I was genuinely surprised, and I thought it'd be fun to do a little experiment, where I went to the student's bedroom and picked up some videogames and movies. All I did was a simple "Is this a movie or a videogame?" test, by naming their titles. He didn't recognize any of them except for Batman. Among those included were The Elder Scrolls, Metroid, and Pokemon. He didn't know what fucking Pokemon is. Pokemon. Fucking Pokemon, probably the most recognizable fictional franchise of all time next to Star Wars and Superman, and he didn't know what it was. My grandparents know what Pokemon is. My batshit great aunt who spends five hours every single day in church attending mass and besides that only watches evangelist television and the Hallmark channel knows what Pokemon is. You go out on the street holding a sign with a Pikachu on it with a tagline "Do you recognize this?" underneath and 99% of the people you encounter will say that they do. And this is a guy who is earning six figures a year for his "expertise". Its practically like he's pulling a Bamboozled or a Weekend at Bernie's.

Anyways, good video as always. Love the new background, and hail Hydra!

So is this now Jimquisition Beta Version 0.75? When's the official launch going to be, Jim?! Will 'Version 1.0' have a 'twice the size fantasy Willem Defoe'?

Vaguely on topic, it's embarrassing these people don't even know a Nintendo title by the sounds of it.

Okay, so I want to quickly say, loved the episode was brilliant and all. I'm pretty sure what you said was true and honest.

However, I'm an incredibly skeptical person when it comes from the account of ANONYMOUS sources, especially without some proof. There's just so little information about the source (position in games industry, what publisher they may be working for or talking about) that I can't help but be on the side of skepticism.

I just don't like anonymous sources because it usually means they can't be held accountable for what they have said, but I do understand the necessity of anonymity in this case. I just wished there was more than one source, or at least some idea where they are in the food chain. Unless I just didn't notice or something.

Great episode, I imagine what you are saying is true, but none the less I'm going to be slightly skeptical of this episode. :)

I love the new background Jim! Aside from the over shiny bits on the last, this one has a much better presentation.

connall:
Okay, so I want to quickly say, loved the episode was brilliant and all. I'm pretty sure what you said was true and honest.

However, I'm an incredibly skeptical person when it comes from the account of ANONYMOUS sources, especially without some proof. There's just so little information about the source (position in games industry, what publisher they may be working for or talking about) that I can't help but be on the side of skepticism.

I just don't like anonymous sources because it usually means they can't be held accountable for what they have said, but I do understand the necessity of anonymity in this case. I just wished there was more than one source, or at least some idea where they are in the food chain. Unless I just didn't notice or something.

Great episode, I imagine what you are saying is true, but none the less I'm going to be slightly skeptical of this episode. :)

That's kinda the point about anonymity. I doubt, though, that Jim would have quoted whoever it was if he didn't trust them, though.

I can't blame anyone for getting a little bleary-eyed at the prospect of making the profits of King or Supercell. Hell, during our app store report meetings, we have to omit them from the chart, just so the graphs have enough definition for us to tell what the other people in the industry are doing.

To my company's credit, the higher-ups have enough sense to know that there's no way we can distinguish ourselves in the industry by cloning their model, but at the end of the day; it's tough to argue with success.

It's good that the people in charge of these companies have experience in their respective fields like marketing or management. They may have been excellent at their previous jobs as well, however Jim is also correct. They don't know or understand the Video Game industry. It would be nice if the developers took the reins of their own businesses since they understand the industry best. If you want a good example look at Cliff Bleszinski. Unfortunately not many people have experience running a game company a developer taking over could lead to a collapse. The collapse would stem from mismanagement or failing to make a profit and dying financially.

connall:
Okay, so I want to quickly say, loved the episode was brilliant and all. I'm pretty sure what you said was true and honest.

However, I'm an incredibly skeptical person when it comes from the account of ANONYMOUS sources, especially without some proof. There's just so little information about the source (position in games industry, what publisher they may be working for or talking about) that I can't help but be on the side of skepticism.

I just don't like anonymous sources because it usually means they can't be held accountable for what they have said, but I do understand the necessity of anonymity in this case. I just wished there was more than one source, or at least some idea where they are in the food chain. Unless I just didn't notice or something.

Great episode, I imagine what you are saying is true, but none the less I'm going to be slightly skeptical of this episode. :)

I generally hate them too, especially when used in news stories. However, I've seen enough frustrated devs to feel I needed to give them catharsis, even if I can't name names. All I can say of the person I quoted is that they're an acquaintance of many years and I most certainly trust their word on any industry goings-on.

I went back and forth on whether or not to make an episode based on anonymous sources. In some ways, though, the fact I never CAN quote many of the agreements I get from developers is further damnation of the environment games can get made in.

RoonMian:

canadamus_prime:
I want to know how this happened. How is it that people who know nothing about video games ended up running video game companies?

It happened when games publishers became market-listed and the concept of shareholder value moved in. Just as in every other industry the very second this happens the highest goals of a company aren't quality and sustainability anymore but... Well... The shareholder value. And because the artists and technicians who are actually making games can't be trusted to squeeze every last penny out of everything like blood from a stone a different kind of people was put in charge.

But isn't that akin to getting a rat to run an ant colony? Actually judging from the results I'd say yes, yes it is.

Jeez. This explains so much. It's worse than I thought, though.

connall:
Okay, so I want to quickly say, loved the episode was brilliant and all. I'm pretty sure what you said was true and honest.

However, I'm an incredibly skeptical person when it comes from the account of ANONYMOUS sources, especially without some proof. There's just so little information about the source (position in games industry, what publisher they may be working for or talking about) that I can't help but be on the side of skepticism.

I just don't like anonymous sources because it usually means they can't be held accountable for what they have said, but I do understand the necessity of anonymity in this case. I just wished there was more than one source, or at least some idea where they are in the food chain. Unless I just didn't notice or something.

Great episode, I imagine what you are saying is true, but none the less I'm going to be slightly skeptical of this episode. :)

To be fair they are only anonymous to us not to Jim so it's more trusting Jim's judgement (which I think is pretty solid in the realm of video games) about these guys then just trusting blind. In addition, the source was more used as a jumping off point then the main focus and there's plenty of other evidence that if not corroborates the specifics, does so with the general sentiment.

...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

Okay, every time I see the pink anteater thing with the cigar in its mouth, I get a vague, uncomfortable memory... can someone clue me in as to what it's from so I can banish the memory?

Abnaxis:
...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

Seconded. What the hell is Clash of Clans?

connall:

However, I'm an incredibly skeptical person when it comes from the account of ANONYMOUS sources, especially without some proof.

There's a picture of the 'anonymous source' at 3:25 in the vid. Don't need any more proof than that. (Quite frankly I'm surprised at Jim for breaking the confidentiality of the guy by including it, if anyone can identify him from that portrait then he could lose his job!)

Also this confirms a lot of what we already suspected about the top dogs. Businessmen that are not gamers, making artistic calls on videogames. Who on earth believes that will end well?

canadamus_prime:

RoonMian:

canadamus_prime:
I want to know how this happened. How is it that people who know nothing about video games ended up running video game companies?

It happened when games publishers became market-listed and the concept of shareholder value moved in. Just as in every other industry the very second this happens the highest goals of a company aren't quality and sustainability anymore but... Well... The shareholder value. And because the artists and technicians who are actually making games can't be trusted to squeeze every last penny out of everything like blood from a stone a different kind of people was put in charge.

But isn't that akin to getting a rat to run an ant colony? Actually judging from the results I'd say yes, yes it is.

Yes, it is. But short-term all the rat-friends of boss-rat are gonna enjoy all the ants they're getting for dinner.

It's like that everywhere. Even the guy who's pretty much the father of shareholder value implemented realized (only 25 years too late) that it's absolute bullshit but people just keep on doing it.

I study automotive engineering and it's especially bad in my sector, the auto industry. 100 years ago Henry Ford said

"There is one rule for the industrialist and that is: Make the best quality of goods possible at the lowest cost possible, paying the highest wage possible."

and

"Cars don't buy cars."

And today we got these clowns running the show.

CelestDaer:
Okay, every time I see the pink anteater thing with the cigar in its mouth, I get a vague, uncomfortable memory... can someone clue me in as to what it's from so I can banish the memory?

It's from "The Racoons", an 80s cartoon. If I recall correctly it's supposed to teach children about the dangers of capitalism and maybe even teach a bit of environmentalism.

Heil Hydra!

(It does roll off better than "Thank God for Jim", can we keep it?)

I predict that once they do find out about the fertile indie and small scale circles of the industry, they will attempt to immitate it, fail miserably and then bemoan them for being a threat to the industry.

Abnaxis:
...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

iPad, I believe. Some sort of F2P basebuilding affair. Makes me think FarmVille had an affair with Age of Empires, while seeing milkman Minecraft now and again.

What are you even going on about with the early access comment? A big part of early access is allowing players to voice their criticism on a title while its still in production.

Did you do a video on this? I hope your option on the subject is more nuanced and you were just being hyperbolic.

EDIT: Found the video. Nevermind the above then.

senordesol:
I can't blame anyone for getting a little bleary-eyed at the prospect of making the profits of King or Supercell. Hell, during our app store report meetings, we have to omit them from the chart, just so the graphs have enough definition for us to tell what the other people in the industry are doing.

To my company's credit, the higher-ups have enough sense to know that there's no way we can distinguish ourselves in the industry by cloning their model, but at the end of the day; it's tough to argue with success.

True, but the point about the profits of King, Supercell etc. is that they are already being made by those companies. Cloning a game formula expecting to get the same success as the original game is like launching a website which allows to upload videos and expecting it to immediately become as successful and profitable as Youtube.

OT: I really like the new background. Really fits in with the tone of the show.

grey_space:

Abnaxis:
...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

Seconded. What the hell is Clash of Clans?

Thirded...or whatever. I think I saw a bit of that video Jim showed, but I never realized it was such a big deal or anything.

this ... just ... doesn't make any god damn sense. When you hire someone to market your videogames or to run your videogame company, the first thing you should demand is expertise ON BLOODY VIDEOGAMES. When you go to an interview and can't name at least 10 genres of games with at least one example to each you should be thrown out the fucking door! what is even the hell? though sudenly it all makes sense ... all the insane idiotic decisions made by publishers and companies.
If only games never became an industry ...

Abnaxis:
...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

grey_space:

Abnaxis:
...

I've never even heard of Clash of Clans. Is it a big mobile title or something?

Seconded. What the hell is Clash of Clans?

Yeah, it's a very popular mobile game that Dungeon Keeper Mobile supposedly copied (read stole) the gameplay off (and the new Rollercoaster Tycoon gameplay took a fair bit of inspiration from their base setting/time limit to every action style) Although of course there are dozens of games that precede Clash of Clans with the same gameplay techniques, it's just that C'o'C happened to be the one to get famous and become a super money spinning runaway success.

Expect to see an awful lot more of this style appearing out of thin air as all the late gold miners turn up for the rush (and don't be surprised if that includes big titles from big companies as well!)

Long time watcher, first time poster, what piques my interest in this episode is why these 3 & only these 3 games grab marketeers attention and no others.

I'm sure I could play devil's advocate and come up with a couple of half baked ideas as to why but I'm fairly sure there are some nuanced arguments beyond the all or nothing motivation put forward in today's episode.

Many thanks for a compelling episode.
Love the new banner, but please don't start making the set too nice, I appreciate the skeezy under & overtones of the show.

Did... did you just compare Cedric to Cyril?!

All my rage!

 Pages 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here