Si l'on en croit cette interview, JR semble assez pessimiste sur les next-gen...
E3 debriefing: Game developers are mad as hell
By Paul Hyman
If the game industry is expecting the wow power of sizzling graphics to fuel next-generation game sales, they ought to think again. Having walked the aisles of last week's E3 trade show, Jason Rubin proclaimed the transition to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (PS3) games the eginning of the end of cool graphics as the primary driver of video game purchases. Rubin was formerly co-president of developer Naughty Dog, best known for the award-winning Crash Bandicoot and Jak and Daxter series. Now he is president of recently formed entertainment company MorganRose, a member of the advisory board of the Game Developers Conference, and a frequent speaker at industry gatherings. HollywoodReporter.com columnist Paul Hyman had Rubin de-brief him on his three days at E3, and the always-opinionated Rubin graciously complied with his thoughts on why he's finding next-gen ho-hum, how publishers may be getting smarter about licensed IP, and the buzz at the show from developers.
The Hollywood Reporter: I'm sure you went into E3 with certain expectations of what you'd see, the new software on display, and the next-generation consoles. Did anything surprise you or exceed your expectations?
Jason Rubin: No, nothing really exceeded my expectations. In terms of next-generation games, the only
eal games we saw were Microsoft's -- and the Xbox 360 hardware they were running on wasn't even final, maybe just 75% of the final speed. Sony was at what I like to call the dream stage of their PS3. What they showed wasn't anything running on real hardware; they showed concepts, high-res renders, effectively smoke and mirrors. But that's normal. There was no deceit, it's just that their software isn't playable yet. However, I'm not sure that people at the show realized that -- that when they tried to compare the Xbox 360 games with the PS3 games, they were actually seeing two very different stages of production.
THR: Does that mean you were disappointed by what you saw?
Rubin: Not at all. But I do think we're seeing the beginning of the end of graphics wow power as the primary driver of video game purchases. I mean, take a look at the Madden NFL football series today. People say, Wow, it really looks like TV football. Yes, so where do you go from there? Each time we've transitioned from one console to the next, the consumer has said I have to buy that new system because now the games look so much better. But when we see Madden on the Xbox 360 or the PS3, there's not going to be as profound a difference as when we went from the PS1 to the PS2.
THR: Both Sony and Microsoft are touting the incredible graphics that their next-gen consoles will provide.
Rubin: I know that. But, for the very first time, I heard many, many people say that, as they walked through the show, they had to look carefully at the signs next to a lot of the games to make sure they were watching an Xbox 360 game and not just a really, really good-looking Xbox game.
THR: So are gamers going to look at the new games and ask why should they spend the extra money to upgrade?
Rubin: They might. And that's a real danger. We can no longer rely on graphics to make people go out and buy a new system. What we need is better content. We need to find more Grand Theft Autos. GTA has huge open worlds, lots of capabilities, and tons of cars and people to interact with in a non-linear fashion. It's not just about the graphics.
THR: Was there any indication at E3 that next-gen content will be better than last-gen?
Rubin: I didn't see anything that made me excited about next-gen content. If I had to pick one game that showed off next-gen, it had to be Epic's new first-person shooter, Gears Of War. It looked great. But it's a first-person shooter and I didn't see it doing anything that other FPS can't do.
THR: Maybe that's just an indication that what you saw were release titles?
Rubin: Exactly. I'm not trying to be pessimistic and say we're doomed. In fact, quite the opposite. I'm still positive about what the industry can produce for next-gen. I just didn't see it yet.
THR: There have been predictions that, because next-gen consoles can better capture the look of a movie, that the industry's bout with license-itis will get even worse. Were there any signs of that?
Rubin: There's no doubt that 2005 is the year of the licensed last-gen game, but that's because we're at the end of the last-gen cycle and this is a great time to hit the mass market gamers with something familiar. What you didn't see at E3 were a ton of licensed next-gen games, and that's because publishers know that, when you have brand new hardware, it's the right time to launch titles that aren't licensed, that contain fresh characters. They understand that the hardcore gamer will be the main consumer when the new hardware comes out; it'll be too expensive for the casual gamer. These are the gamers who read the game magazines, who do the research before they buy, who are interested in new stuff. It's a great time to launch original IP.
That's not to say there won't be licensed IP turned into games with next-gen. But I think there's been a shift away from third-tier licenses, like Jackass: The Movie, to realizing that only the biggest and best licenses matter, like, say, King Kong. So I think you're seeing a little maturity on the publisher's part as to what they're doing with their licenses. Even though the industry is still license crazy, I didn't see any nutty TV shows getting prominent placement at E3 like they used to. I mean, The Apprentice may be a good TV show, but it's not going to make a great game. And publishers who do turn such licenses into games aren't pushing them as if they are first-tier licenses.
THR: What about sequels? Same story?
Rubin: Completely different. If you want to blame someone for the number of sequels, blame the consumer. They love them, they buy them, and so I really don't see a problem there. If Tony Hawk 58 is what gamers want, so be it. It's a different world in games than in movies. Sequels to games tend to get better, and because they are interactive, the gameplay is different. I mean, Grand Theft Auto 5 has sold better than GTA 4 and GTA 3, so why not do GTA 6? From a business standpoint, even if it costs more, you'd do it. Because that's obviously what the consumer wants. As long as we keep innovating in our sequels, I just don't see it as a problem.
THR: It's no secret that the new, bigger games -- especially for next-gen -- are costing more to develop. Isn't that what's behind some of the working condition issues for developers? That, in order to contain costs, developers are being squeezed?
Rubin: We do have a problem with working conditions and with developer compensation, and I think that's coming to a head in our industry. In fact, it's got just a little bit farther to go before something is going to snap. Listen, you just can't make video games without game developers. You can't suddenly find a guy who's made a game that can compete with Madden. The guys who make Madden are irreplaceable. They know things that nobody else knows. And yet, as you walk around E3, it's crystal clear that their names -- the names of their companies -- have been stripped off of everything. At the same time, their compensation packages are getting worse and worse in relation to the size and profitability of the industry.
THR: Why do today's games have the publisher's name on the box instead?
Rubin: It doesn't make much sense, if you ask me. Nobody says, Hey, I'm going to that movie because it's a Universal picture. They go because Peter Jackson made it or Steven Spielberg. Similarly, I know that some gamers bought some of the Naughty Dog titles because we made a specific kind of game that they liked. But it doesn't make sense for Sony -- which makes everything from crap to cream -- to paste their name on a game. Do you think anybody is saying, I want that game because it's a Sony game? I don't think so.
THR: So developers' getting credit for their games is a big gripe?
Rubin: That, and compensation. Look, we are artists, we are definitely artists. I know it in my gut. But the publishers have effectively turned developers into assembly line workers. And now the developers are saying, if you don't want to pay me as an artist, then I want to be paid overtime because you're making me work these incredibly long hours and I'm not doing anything creative anymore.
THR: There's been a lot of talk in the games industry about unionization. Do you think that will happen?
Rubin: Just as in the movie industry, you're going to see a division into above the line and elow the line developers. When I say developers are irreplaceable, I mean the four or five above the line guys on every team -- the lead designers, the lead programrs, the game directors, the producers, and so forth -- who deserve the royalties, whose names need to be out there, who eventually will feel so much pressure that they'll break. In fact, you're seeing that now at some of the studios in town, where some of the lead guys are actually leaving and those studios are scrambling to find replacements. If those guys can get their own financing -- and that's a big if -- they'll say To hell with you publishers. I'm going to raise my own money, make my own games, and I don't need you. And I believe that will happen in the next few years. They're talking about it, and I can tell you that I have conversations like that with them all the time. At some point, somebody is going to back them financially. It's a risky thing to do, but somebody will do it. And then it's going to flip forever the control from the publisher to the talent, just like it did in the movie industry in the 1920s.
THR: And the elow the line guys? The modelers? The texturers? The low-level programrs? Do they unionize?
Rubin: I don't know. When you make a movie, you can't film half a scene in Los Angeles and the other half in India. But video games are different. There are studios setting themselves up in Vietnam and China and India to do some of the lower-end modeling and texturing. You can e-mail one of these studios at night with instructions to add 50% more polygons to a model, and when you come in the next morning, the work is done. If the work can be done cheaper and faster overseas, I don't know how well unions will work here.
THR: And all of this talk was evident to you at E3?
Rubin: Oh yeah. The buzz on the street among the above the line guys was What the hell are we going to do? They used to work the hard hours but never had a problem with it because they could get bloody rich. Now many of them are working the same hard hours -- or longer hours -- but the backend is gone. And on top of that, they're being so micro-managed that they don't feel like they're doing art anymore. My observation is that it's all coming to a head.
THR: Any predictions on when?
Rubin: None. The timeline is impossible to read. There are a lot of people out there talking and looking. But it's the kind of thing where somebody has to make the first move. And, once that happens, there'll be this explosion. The guy who jumps first will have a huge advantage because, then, all the developers will want to jump with him. It's going to be interesting -- to say the least.
posted the 06/02/2005 at 12:31 PM by
tessshu
accueil | 
news | 
blogs | 
videos | 
reviews | 
previews | 
features | 
Facebook
profile
add a comment | comments (10)
