Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Capntastic]

Actually Grakelin I'm pretty sure bringing up book publishers and low-rent paper was in response to me talking about vanity presses, but thanks.

Micro:  Vanity presses usually wield little creative control over their authors, in my knowledge.   The reason publishers censor stuff is to assure a wider audience, so in a situation where they get paid either way, they really don't need to care.   Ergo, the quality isn't assured to go up, but the influx of low quality 'shitty games' is almost invariably going to increase.  Imagine shovelware without any publisher backing to even try to make it a widespread, playable success.   So the success or failure wouldn't lay on the publisher, since they get paid either way- it's the situation that arises in the theoretical Devs Pay Publishers world that causes the quality to drop.

[Grakelin]

Yeah, the thing is, you take your hits. You sign on with someone like EA, you let your greed get ahead of you like that, don't be surprised if people don't buy your game. Because, unfortunately, EA have pronounced pretty loudly that people not buying games they publish is the absolute only way they will listen.

No, I was responding to this.

[Capntastic]

Then why did you quote me?

[Grakelin]

I'm not going to touch this one.

[Capntastic]

Fair enough, I'm just confused as to why you interjected that no one was responding to me, when people clearly had, and then tried to pass it off like you were talking about something wholly unrelated even though you quoted me.

[Grakelin]

I didn't quote you in that post.

[Capntastic]

Sorry but that has nothing to do with his supplied solution of "developers paying publishers", which is what I was addressing, and rightfully pointing out how much of a terrible idea it was.

Probably because nobody was responding to it.

Go back a page and see that you are in fact quoting me.

MOVING ON: 

Regardless, monolithic publishers are going to be terrible but such is the way of capitalism- the easiest way to get mass presence is to throw in with a large company that wants to gamble on your work.  Having a 'vanity press' situation where you pay to get published wouldn't be a solution, as I've said [Still waiting for SoulWynd's response on that], since you're shifting all of the risk onto the devs with no real gain in any way.   Sure it'd allow people that Want To Pay to get distributed, but that's a far cry from a perfect system.

[Grakelin]

I would advise you do so yourself to take note of which post I quote you in, exactly.

[Capntastic]

Here's the summarized breakdown of events, for our viewers at home, Grakelin:

Me:  Vanity Presses tend to produce low quality.
Micro:  But is that the dev's fault or the publisher's fault?
Me:  It's irrelevent, since it's still low quality.   I don't see how it matters.
Grakelin:  No one was talking to you, Capntastic.
Me:  No I'm pretty sure Micro was replying to me.
Grakelin:  No, I was responding to this [quotes something that has nothing to do with Capn and Micro's conversation]

But I'll let you have the last word on this, Grakelin.

[zchris13]

Shut up I'm trying to sleep over here!

[Micro102]

capn My post had no connection to yours I was responding to Grakelin, since his post was right above mine, I used the low quality materials of a book to represent things gaming companies do to ruin devs games.

[Capntastic]

Fair enough, though it seemed like it could apply to vanity presses.

[Soulwynd]

Sorry but that has nothing to do with his supplied solution of "developers paying publishers", which is what I was addressing, and rightfully pointing out how much of a terrible idea it was.

It's how -publishers became publishers-. Once upon a time most of them made games on their own. EA, when it made games, was awesome and I hold some of those games dear.

Now you get companies that don't -produce content-, hell they even fail on making a decent box with a decent manual, and get money, and waaaay more money than who actually made the game to begin with, by taking the content and putting it in a box to sell.

The risks and profits should be in the hands of the developers, not the 3rd party. Plus we're moving towards an era where publishers are becoming obsolete.

One of the reasons indie devs are so proud to state no 3rd party involved when they sell something. Money goes straight to the developer instead to a shitty publisher.

[Capntastic]

Yeah but unless you're doing 100% digital distribution, a dev stands to lose everything if they try to sell their product in a physical form.   Likewise, publishers have far more ability to advertise and distribute than any indie dev.   They have the capital to bankroll a big push like that.  Of course, this is all if you're developing to actually try to sell your game instead of for fun.

[Neonivek]

The problem with Boycottes and public responsibility is that frankly... it takes a LOT to actually make the public do anything.

The public caves easily and can take a lot of abuse.

So basically EA is going to take over the world. So developers have nothing to worry about. EA could put Spore type Securom in all their games and you would still make money.

---------

As for Spore. DICE wasn't the only thing that disproves the 2005 video. The earliest articles that disproves the 2005 video would be pretty much every article after 2005.