Andrew McMillen has completed another great feature for IGN on the Australian games industry, this time he's covering the issue of Triple-A titles. So, what is the current state of Australian games development for huge, big budget, triple-A quality titles? Why isn't our nation known as a powerhouse for making these games, and what's holding us back? And should Triple A titles be a goal for the industry any more considering the current climate?
Contributing to the discussion is IGDA Brisbane coordinator, Jane 'Truna' Turner, Australian Gamer's Guy 'Yug' Blomberg, Halfbrick Studios Submissions Manager, Tony Takoushi, startup consultant, Nicolas Rodriguez, and myself.
The option of working on a Triple-A title has become an even rarer opportunity for the local games industry after the closure of notable studios like Auran, Pandemic Studios, and Krome Studios. While we do still have some remaining studios working on big titles here, you could count them all on one hand. So, how did we get to this stage?
Yug from Australian Gamer explains that Australia is just too expensive for Triple-A games, and the fact that we're just not well known for producing high calibre titles and our location are big hurdles for publisher investment. From IGN's feature...
(Yug) As an industry, we're now one of the most expensive options for game development; [we're] far away and on the wrong time, with a recent reputation for average games, failed studios, and missed deadlines
Tony Takoushi agrees that quality issues are a concern and adds that a lack of overall vision are the main reasons why we are just not cutting it on the global stage...
(Tony) With respect, you've got some very talented people at studios across Australia, but they don't necessarily have commercial sensibility
Of course, at this point it was only fair to describe some of the disadvantages the local games industry has competing with other industries when we are not on the same level playing field in regards to Government tax breaks and incentives. And here is where I quote myself...
(Souri) The Canadian games industry enjoys a generous 37.5% tax relief," he says. Closer to home, "our Singaporean neighbours received $20 million in games funding last year. In comparison, our largest state for games development, Victoria, has had its games funding cut last year to just one million dollars spread out to two years.
Nicolas Rodriguez, previously Studio Head at Zoë Mode London, provides the view that maybe Triple-A games shouldn't be the direction for Australia since the numbers simply don't add up any more for Triple-A games production. While the budgets are many times larger the previous generation of the PS2 and Xbox console era, the games market itself is much smaller...
(Nicolas) Maybe you're asking the wrong question, in a way," he continues. "Why would you want big studios? What do big studios give you, at the end of the day? I'd argue that the day and age of very large, one-stop-shop studios is over, globally.
A comment from IGDA Brisbane coordinator, Jane 'Truna' Turner, gives her thoughts on where the local industry should be heading...
The big oak trees have fallen; it's time for the little seedlings to get stuck in there
But is an industry entirely focussed on smaller indie games studios where it all should be heading? Apart from employing a large number of staff, the loss of the "big" studio's may have a detrimental effect on our capabilities in the future, and it's an issue we've raised before.
A skilled and capable industry depends on the mentoring of experienced staff to the juniors, and while we do have a vast number of games students that graduate every year, the big studio closures mean that the passing-on of knowledge from the 'elite' Triple-A experienced developers is no more as they've had to find work in other industries or even relocate overseas.
The entire feature is an excellent read, and I do highly recommend checking it out on IGN at the following link..
We have AAA studios. We also have indies.
I would agree that as it currently stands there's not a lot to gain for our local industry to focus its free resources solely into chasing AAA console development.
We have BlueTounge, Visceral [EA], THQ, 2K and Bondi all working on next gen titles. All of which are working on impressive, high quality productions. All of these studios have the supported backing of an overseas publisher through ether being part of the publisher studio collection or by tight relationships. If as an industry we want more AAA studios then it'll be done through a slow process of newer studios working with a publisher to create a studio of high value or by a publisher establishing a studio here. Both of these are hard asks given the climate and it's simply going to take time to make it happen.
We have many individuals all trying to establish smaller studios with intentions to create smaller, more agile teams working on games for mobile, Facebook and pc download. I'm of the opinion that these sectors represent Australia's most viable development portals for the next 12 months. They're reaching a point of high competition and saturation, but viable business is still possible.
While it's inevitable that many of these new indie start-ups will fade and disband due to not being able to survive a failed project or an inability to commit to a long term business due to other reasons. I predict that a few will solidify and become studios working on 2 to 3 simultaneous projects hiring 10 to 40 developers each.
I think as for what we can aim for and aspire to as a local industry reputation. I would like to see us release the kind of games that do very well in a downloable PC market where games with moderate budgets and production value requirements can make a healthy profit.
Games like Killing Floor, Torchlight and Monday Night Combat to give some examples.
It's going to take a few years to get to that point at which point the market may be different. But I think that middle-ground of game development is a reasonable goal to move towards.
Free Money
While generally I agree with most of what is said in the article, I do take issue with the general catch cry of 'Free Money, it would all be good if we had free money'. You see it all around, "the government should invest", "we should get tax breaks". While I'm sure all of us would agree it would make things easier, it's not a replacement for good business sense and proper planning.
With our industry's track record, what possible case could you pitch to the government that it would be a worthy pursuit. "Look, I know we've produced some really crap games, and yes a lot of our studios are collapsing under the weight of their overheads... Certainly, no-one's denying there's a 1/20 rate of projects that return their cost... but demand is going up!" Take into consideration the state of our economy, with taxes being levied to fund current spending. Our infrastructure is well behind demand, and governments are selling assets. It's simply not feasible.
We look at the successes of Firemint and Halfbrick. Firemint and Halfbrick, while certainly not lacking in creativity and development ability, have been successful because they have been guided with a level head and solid business sense. They haven't expanded too rapidly or relied entirely on fickle international contracts. Their hiring practices are based on getting the best staff for the best price (within reason), not on drinking games and nepotism.
Australia is perfectly capable of running AAA studios, if only we look at the Games Development business as such - a business. Under no circumstances should government funding and tax incentives be the factor that makes the business viable. These are only excuses for poor management. Let's see people 'man-up' and take some responsibility.
Not to sound too blunt,
Not to sound too blunt, but..
I will value your attitude more after you have proven it.
This website is certainly full of people who know what is and isn’t needed, and what should and shouldn’t be done. Its odd then, that with some many people around here, there are so few success stories. You'd think we knew what we were doing.
No Offence Taken
That's quite alright, you're entitled to your opinion, but I would value it more if it didn't come from someone who won't even associate their words with their person. Nonetheless, if there's something you specifically disagree with, feel free to point it out. Do you deny the need for sensible business administration and planning? Do you feel the industry is inherently deserving of reward from the government? I want to know, as I am genuinely curious as to the thought patterns that lead to the 'entitled' reasoning I see so often.
There is nothing to gain from
There is nothing to gain from putting your name against a post. You don’t know me, and even though you put your name against your words, I am still no closer to knowing you.
However, I would much rather take the views of people who have been there and done that... the people who know what they are talking about first hand when they say that government funding not only helps the industry in countries where its available, but makes countries who don't less competitive. I will listen to the big foreign studios who cut back or close down studios because the economics don't add up. I'll take note of the work for hire market drying up and moving offshore. I'll continue to sit back and watch the industry decline and observe the lack of both domestic and foreign investment. Business is important but so is investment, and without it, it doesn’t matter how good a businessman you are.
You offer a lot of confident opinions on this matter. You feel secure enough in your position to publically go against the view of those who have a proven track record. Now it’s up to you to go out and prove how it’s done.
Otherwise you will be here in 5 years time, still telling everyone else what they do or don't need to do.
Importance of Identity
The purpose of putting a name to a post is to maintain a constant identity in discussion. Placing your name/ident by your words indicates you are willing to stand by them, otherwise you're taking shots from the shadows.
No-one is denying the fact that work-for-hire contracts have drastically reduced over the past few years, and for good reason. That event was, however, predictable some time ahead. The more sensible studio leads prepared in advance by reducing reliance on external contracts, as seen (and said) with Firemint and Halfbrick.
Regarding investment, it is important, certainly. Foreign investment is reduced, but still possible. Domestic investment is also accessible. The trick is, investment (in a real sense) relies on pitching a good business case to the potential investors. Pitching a 1/10 chance of surviving three years is NOT going to sell them. Studios need to make a real case for success (and plan for it), rather than rely on handouts and big publishers. Finding investment comes down, in most cases, to the business sense I am promoting. You need to really sell your idea whether through distributed funding, cost minimisation, product differentiation, detailed metrics or some other method.
I do have a lot of confidence in my opinions on the matter. My track record may be short, but it is not a track record of failure. I am putting my ideas into practice and am running my own studio. It's new and, as-yet, unproven. I am willing to stake my status on its success, confident that I have prepared as best I can for success. Furthermore, I will probably be here in 5 years time, still telling everyone else what's needed. As a creative industry, we still need to learn a great deal. Hopefully, though not by luck, I will have the long record that seems necessary for people to hear sense.
I would add that most of
I would add that most of those who are adding an opinion mostly come from a journalist background not from a strong games development background.
While it certainly there job to provide feedback on these types of issues it doesn't necessarily "been there done that" experience.
While I respect the series of opinions offered in the article I wouldn't take it as gospel and Nathan is quite within his rights to open up some debate.
Funding
What I wrote about the difference in Government support for the IGN feature should be taken in context of the article.
The feature was about why local developers can't or aren't able to produce Triple A title games, and the point I wanted to illustrate was the huge difference in Government support from Triple-A games producing regions like Canada, to Australia. They have the support to bring in publisher interest to make Triple-A titles, we don't.
Of course, you can go much further and have a whole discussion about funding - why the FM games funding was slashed, whether funding would produce results, whether the Government should prop up an industry etc, and whether we should concentrate on indie games etc but would those questions are going much deeper than the subject of the article of "why we aren't producing Triple-A games".
Moderation
By comparison to what I have read across the span of the interwebs, your opinions expressed in the article are reasonably level-headed and moderate, and I have no strong objection to them in isolation. It seems, however, that a lot of people are focued entirely on the issue of hand-outs, and I felt the need to address it in response.
An opinion, mostly derived
An opinion, mostly derived from watching and being part of countless mediocre game releases and failed attempts at AAA.
- Home grown leadership & management (rife with nepotism) that lack the experience to manage the dynamics and scope of large AAA teams. Burdened with the responsibility to deliver AAA and without the skills or experience to manage teams and budgets of that size they either miss-manage until the point of failure or hire in expensive 'silver bullet' imports to fix the issues and plug the holes. On the most part the imports don't measure up to their credentials and bring little substance or experience transfer to the studio before jumping ship at the first signs of it sinking, after all this is just an Australian working holiday right?
- Skilled labor (and imports) in the trenches that can execute at AAA quality but flounder under the lack of vision, direction and management. Decisions arn't made or worse flip flopped around until their is no time left and little option than just go with what they have and crunch like hell to get a mediocre result out the door. When they get sick of doing this, they either move industry or go find a job overseas in search of a better result.
- Not so skilled labor that think they know how to make a AAA but have only worked in one or two Australian studios for their entire career with no exposure to what it takes to make a AAA game.
Solutions? I really don't know, but the result is closed studios.