Iron Tower Studio - An Evening with Annie Carlson

[Dhruin]

Vince D. Weller continues his knack of gathering interesting interviews with a nice little discussion with ex-Obsidian writer, Annie Carlson. The conversation ranges from her experiences with Obsidian bouncing around different projects to industry issues:

What's wrong with the industry? Simple question, I know.

Man, how long do you want this interview to be? Jeez…

…It’s not just one thing, obviously. I have my own pet concerns, but the thing that keeps coming to mind for me is that companies pour money into games to get the latest everything, and turn out an industry that’s AAA or Bust. Either a game is a huge success, or it tanks and the team gets laid off. There seems to be less and less room for investment in games that are out to be modest successes, that don’t try to excel on every single artistic level but create something solid. More modest, mid-range titles that may not be the very best-looking thing out there, but are fun as hell to play. I feel like that’d offer up a lot more opportunities to take risks and offer up unique concepts – if you don’t have to sign up a massive budget to it and can make good use of existing technology you’re familiar with, everybody saves money, and the gamer wins in the end.

As far as smaller, more affordable projects go, CRPGs have the advantage in many ways because it’s far easier to develop for them than multiple consoles – but due to the technical demands (whether in terms of raw power or simple dedication to troubleshoot the damn thing), many people don’t invest in computer games. It’s odd that there seems to be this split in computer gaming between the very hardcore and the very casual, with MMO players often bridging that gap. I think one of the things that made World of Warcraft so successful is that you can play that on anything, and it’s very easy to troubleshoot. Sure, not every game can have a virtual army of Game Masters on hand to help with issues, but I think there’s a kind of stubborn pride among hardcore computer gamers in that they have the patience to install the patches, to investigate the bugs, to tweak the settings, etc. Your average gamer will simply not give a toss, and while I do tip my hat to those who have braved the wilds of unpatched games, I think taking that for granted is hurting the PC-only titles out there. Actually bothering to come up with something that’s as technically intact as possible (and I’m not talking bugs so much as make the freaking thing easy to patch and provide actual support) would, I think, go a long ways to helping with that.

And piracy. You guys don’t even know how horrible piracy is to PC sales. You can go “oh it’s a victimless crime” as much as you want, but when publishers look at sales as a way of giving business to developers (and even royalties), it is a huge problem. If you Torrent a game, you may be saying “oh, I didn’t hurt anyone,” but the game industry isn’t like the movie industry, where everyone gets paid no matter what, and you have multiple investors. Especially with smaller or self-published studios, there’s a lot more at stake. Not to sound like your mom or anything, but it is a problem, and handwaving won’t fix it. I don’t know precisely what will, but right now I’m erring on the side of speakin’ the truth from the developer’s perspective. I know what it’s like to be poor – when I was a college kid I had to beg and borrow my games from friends – but please, don’t steal shit. Shut down that Bittorrent link and give some poor dev that pizza money you’ve been saving. It’s what helps them make more games you enjoy.

More information.

 

[skavenhorde]

Good interview. Especially liked the part about deaing with the "people".

When I see people use the phrase “I will NEVER FORGIVE Obsidian for what they did to KOTOR2!” I think “Holy shit, man, take it easy!” I can understand how pissed they can be, but my God, did Obsidian as a whole run over their cat?

Classic! Neary spit out my coffee when I read that.

Plus the bit about how she got into the biz was interesting as well. I didn't know GameStop was the place to be to get your foot in the door.

 

[Dez]

Good reading and I also laughed aloud after reading the kotor 2 quote . I don't doubt it at all that we fans can be at the same a bliss and a pain in the arse. Reminds me of keeping more open mind.

A really talented gal, hopefully she'll get to write that dream rpg someday

 

[xSamhainx]

Who the hell is Annie Carlson?

Well now I know, and turned out being a great read!

A "Taxi Driver" game? Woah! Talk about a project that i would (like Tabula Rasa) out-of-the-gate predict to go irretrievably south. The paranoid, introverted loner Travis Bickle just isnt an action, or "hero" type of character, period. He's a tragic, grotesquely flailing, accidental hero. I dont even think he could be accurately portrayed in a game, he's meant to be observed. He's a lonely, depressed loser turned one-hit-wonder vigilante, tho I guess he does accidentally stop that one hold up attempt earlier in the film, the event that pushes him forward. Still, it just doesnt seem like action game material, he's the study of a man's meltdown amidst social commentary of 70's american inner city life. Upgrading to dual wrist-mounted gun slides eventually would just be demeaning to the legacy of the film.

I think making a game from that movie was problematic because no matter what you do, there’s going to be a lot of people who will not only never like the game, but will hate you personally for making it.

Absolutely true, not only movie but any type of re-envisioning of any sort of beloved classic. I wouldnt hate, I'd laugh tho. Just added it to my netflix que!

Nice view from the inside of the game industry, glad I read it.

 

[Zephyr]

Annie addresses a point I've felt strongly about, not only in gaming, but films. And that's the obsessive concentration on turning out blockbuster titles at the expense of good, solid fun-to-play games. Developers seem to take an all or nothing approach. It would make more sense, to me at least, to turn out a half-dozen well-designed, fun to play games that sold modestly than to put all your eggs in one basket. And that with no quarantee it will generate a big payday. If I were a studio head, I'd rather have a steady revenue stream than roll the dice on The Next Big Thing every time. YMMV.

 

[Dhruin]

It's not the studios, it's the publishers.

The major NA publishers are rather large - usually public - companies now. It takes more effort to produce additional titles (more producers, more QA, more distribution, more legal and accounting for agreements with more studios) for smaller returns. For a company like EA or ActiBlizzard, a small title will have no useful effect on the bottom line, which means little to drive the share price.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but it isn't easily changed. We need a different system and maybe even a different commerce system - while the current market exists, companies will always be influenced by their share prices.

 

[Unrestigered]

It's not the studios, it's the publishers.

The major NA publishers are rather large - usually public - companies now. It takes more effort to produce additional titles (more producers, more QA, more distribution, more legal and accounting for agreements with more studios) for smaller returns. For a company like EA or ActiBlizzard, a small title will have no useful effect on the bottom line, which means little to drive the share price.

I'm not disagreeing with your overall point but it isn't easily changed. We need a different system and maybe even a different commerce system - while the current market exists, companies will always be influenced by their share prices.

You make it sound as if this situation is Corporation created and not consumer created. The consumer decided what kinds of games they are willing to pay money for, and the companies are giving it to them. Blaming the companies for making the games people decide are profitable is crazy.

How many people who frequent this crpg site would not play a Spiderweb game, nevermind pay money for one? The consumers decided they value graphics far more than game play, graphics sell games, gameplay doesn't. Most of the big-deal fancy smancy rpgs this site heavily covers can hardly be called games. It's interactive real fancy-screensavers.

If you want to know why the game industry is as it currently is, the people here should like in the mirror (and blame pirating of games as well, pirating is a bigger deal economically than people understand, and greatly adds to the huge pull to the center for game developers).

 

[Brother None]

You make it sound as if this situation is Corporation created and not consumer created. The consumer decided what kinds of games they are willing to pay money for, and the companies are giving it to them. Blaming the companies for making the games people decide are profitable is crazy.

I think you're missing a bit of his point. The higher sales of the more popular titles are consumer-created, the fact that GTA IV and Oblivion outsell the Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer (let alone Spiderweb's games) is a consumer-created circumstance.

But at the same time, Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum, they all made a profit. None of them, as far as I know, made a huge profit, but none of them made a loss. What Dhruin was talking about as corporation-created is the circumstance by which these kind of mid-tier projects, while not losing money, are not profitable enough when held against the background of a large publisher's bottom line. And that has at least as much to do with the corporation's make-up as with the consumer's choice.

 

[Unrestigered]

I think you're missing a bit of his point. The higher sales of the more popular titles are consumer-created, the fact that GTA IV and Oblivion outsell the Witcher and Mask of the Betrayer (let alone Spiderweb's games) is a consumer-created circumstance.

But at the same time, Fallout, Fallout 2, Planescape: Torment, Arcanum, they all made a profit. None of them, as far as I know, made a huge profit, but none of them made a loss. What Dhruin was talking about as corporation-created is the circumstance by which these kind of mid-tier projects, while not losing money, are not profitable enough when held against the background of a large publisher's bottom line. And that has at least as much to do with the corporation's make-up as with the consumer's choice.

The only viable outlook for businesses is the creation of long-term economic profit for the owners. Any business wants to spread risk across multiple revenue sources. FO 1 and 2 would not be profitable in today’s market, because the cost would never justify the risk of poor sales of a TB Iso rpg. It would never even be made to even see if it could earn a profit. And this situation is 100% due to the consumer. If people valued gameplay over graphics and had good taste in other areas (such as combat) the situation would be different, but they don’t.

Do you really think the suits in any big game corporation want to treat all art assets as sunk costs? Do you think they want to put all their ducks in one pond (or whatever that saying is). No. They are how they are because of consumer demand.

The only way out of this situation is by us, the consumer, showing the big-boys they are losing out on economic profit by not creating low-production value games catering to people with good taste. Buy Spiderweb games, buy AoD, support the Independents and show them that people with good taste have money, can make low-production games catering to a small market profitable, and have their desire to diversify risk and chase economic-profit force their hand.

 

[Brother None]

The only viable outlookfor businesses is the creation of long-term economic profit for the owners. Any business wants to spread risk across multiple revenue sources.

You'd think so, huh? Not really how stock market-based economies work, tho'. A well-balanced portfolio with small and diminishing-by-the-amount numbers gets you a whole lot of angry stockholders. There is no way any of the CEOs of the major publishers can afford that risk, it is simple more viable to run a lot of high-stock high-risk projects, and the few that fail are compensated by the ones that succeed. For the most part, the film industry runs on a similar basis, but it has a healthier independent and smaller-film house section.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with economics so I won't drone out a lot of Economics 101 here. Just realise a basic truism: 10 smaller titles that turn a gross profit (sales - developer costs) of a million are worth less to a publisher than 1 title with a gross profit of a million. Not just because that one title gives a better opportunity for franchise building (very popular right now), but also because the end-margin of a single big title is easier to balance than the same margin of ten smaller ones.

If anything can change that, it's the current economic crisis. The gaming industry's high-stakes low-margin game is not set up well to weather this kind of windfall.

FO 1 and 2 would not be profitable in today’s market, because the cost would never justify the risk of poor sales of a TB Iso rpg.

Oh man really? So...uh...when did this magical switch where TB Iso RPGs can't be profitable happen? Because the market in '97 already looked bad for TB Iso games, the big titles were the likes of Diablo, Golden Eye 007, Quake II and Ultima Online. Hey, and in 2004 we had Temple of Elemental Evil, a TB Iso game that turned was Atari's best-selling RPG and second-best selling PC game of that year.

So I'm curious. Point to the moment TB Iso RPGs became unprofitable regardless of the publishing model, please.

 

[Unrestigered]

Economic Terms or Accounting Terms? I’m more familiar with the finance definition of terms, but I’m pretty sure I can hang. Overhead is included in gross profit margin, in economics or accounting, so your example doesn’t make sense. If you are talking just gross profit (total revenue – cost of goods sold) and cogs is just beg inv. + purchases-end inv. then that really doesn’t seem to be the best way to measure the game industry. It would be like not considering depreciation of assets, or that the real cost of labor is generally 1.4xsalary.

Franchising, branding, and marketing aspects aside, if we are talking the efficiency of a company that’s gross profit margin. Accounting profit is a much better measure here though. And what about efficiency of scale and scope?

And as for what a game company would rather have, 10 titles creating a million, or one title creating a million (again, what is the efficiency as well as accounting profit?) that is a situation the consumers created. With all things being equal, why? It has to be the consumer. So what are you arguing? Consumer be damned?

Oh man really? So...uh...when did this magical switch where TB Iso RPGs can't be profitable happen? Because the market in '97 already looked bad for TB Iso games, the big titles were the likes of Diablo, Golden Eye 007, Quake II and Ultima Online. Hey, and in 2004 we had Temple of Elemental Evil, a TB Iso game that turned was Atari's best-selling RPG and second-best selling PC game of that year.

So I'm curious. Point to the moment TB Iso RPGs became unprofitable regardless of the publishing model, please.

What was the cost of making a game in 97 compared to today? How many units did FO sell? Would those numbers justify a company making a game today? Why wasn’t FO3 like FO 1 and 2? What is the last TB iso game from any of the big western crpg developers? You are talking gibberish. I might as well talk to my penis, because him telling me to rub him gently makes a lot more sense than the unqualified nonsense you are talking.

Should I also point you to where it says cars with hand-cranks in the front are no longer profitable for the big car makers to sell. And I specifically named a model where TB Iso rpgs are profitable and how it can be more profitable, its your turn to give me an example in the last 5 years of one that is. What are you getting at, it’s a corporate conspiracy that TB iso rpgs are no longer made? No. Other games are a lot more profitable. Its tyranny of the center, or tyranny of the masses. TB iso rpgs do not appeal to the masses, and the masses are the consumer.

 

[Brother None]

You'll have to excuse any odd jargon I use, I'm not used to talking economics in English.

And as for what a game company would rather have, 10 titles creating a million, or one title creating a million (again, what is the efficiency as well as accounting profit?) that is a situation the consumers created.

Huh? We have two situations in which games are profitable, only one in which the profit margins are higher for large, centralized corporations. Because for big corporations, more titles means more overhead and diminishing returns, if you're versed in accounting I don't need to explain that.

Nobody is arguing that popular games don't sell well. But since niche games are in fact profitable (all Troika and BIS RPGs having made a profit), it seems odd to just shout "CONSUMER CONSUMER CONSUMER" all the time. The consumer made sure those games sold enough for a profit, so why would the buck stop with them?

It's not very complex. Consumers don't buy as many niche games as they buy mainstream games, this is kind of inherent in the definition of both those terms. Titles can be sold profitably in both areas of gaming, as has been proven constantly. Yet they are produced only in one, because in stock market-driven economies, the bottom line does not allow for both kinds of profitability.

It is ridiculously naive to think you can turn niche titles into mainstream titles by shouting buy buy buy at consumers. There will always be niche titles, either because the graphics are low or because the gameplay does not attract enough people. The question is not if we can make every gameplay model sell millions, the question is: why would they have to?

What was the cost of making a game in 97 compared to today? How many units did FO sell? Would those numbers justify a company making a game today?

Why are you using Fallout as an example when I gave you a more recent one? The numbers for Fallout were not made public, it sold 500k lifetime, which is enough to reasonable fund a game with about the same investment that - say - Drakensang got, assuming that 500k is not more than half bargain bin.
It's still selling like hotcakes now, mostly on GoG. You can't easily build that kind of value, but no publisher cares.

Also, you're avoiding my question. Troika's industry model produced a profitable low-risk low-margin TB Iso title. It can not do that anymore? Why not?

And I specifically named a model where TB Iso rpgs are profitable and how it can be more profitable, its your turn to give me an example in the last 5 years of one that is.

ToEE was Atari's best-selling RPG and second-best selling PC game of 2004. Why are you making me repeat myself?

Other games are a lot more profitable.

Yes, they are. They're also a lot more expensive, which also means they make for a less stable basis for your industry. That is, in fact, a key part of the argument I'm making. Not entirely sure how you missed that.

 

[Dhruin]

Your basic argument, Roqua, is that if TB games weren't a niche - if as many people liked them as currently like WoW or the Sims - they'd be massive hits. So, therefore, it's the public's fault these are niche games. Am I right?

I guess that's fine as far as it goes but it's a pointless argument. People like what they like - apart from tinkering at the edges to influence them with marketing. Given that as an absolute (or close to it), the rest is a matter of how game producers respond to that demand.

 

[skavenhorde]

I've heard that name, Roqua, before but I can't remember why. Probably for arguments just like these, I guess.

@unreg
This is insane. If you don't make TB ISO then you can officially call the market dead on them, can't you? Convient isn't it?

 

[GhanBuriGhan]

Thw key point to me is what Brother None wrote here:

For the most part, the film industry runs on a similar basis, but it has a healthier independent and smaller-film house section.

Big budget games will always be blockbuster games, with all that entails: High production values in graphics and sound, mass marketable stories, easy accessability, etc. And that's totally fine, I enjoy those, just like I enjoy a good popcron movie. What we really want, I think, is a healthy layer of second tier productions to develop. Games that are produced to generate an income, not to create a profit, to somewhat exaggerate. Games that like many arthouse films, or books are produces as much to make a living as from the will or drive to be creative. A lot of people react violently to the "game as art" debate, but that is what that is really all about- to generate a situation where creativity can find an economically viable outlet. Hoping that the masses will change their tastes is unrealistic.
The current crop of indie RPG's in development makes me very hopeful, but what I miss is an effort to create platforms to facilitate this kind of development, organizing distribution and PR, maybe sharing some resources, pooling art talent, etc. I guess this could be bottom up (a league of indie developers) or top down (a platform created by a "philanthropic" investor). I just feel that the current situation of "each man for himself" in the indie RPG scene is unhealthy for its long-term development.

 

[Fenris]

Strange, everytime someone joins who's angry with the State of modern RPGs everyone here is crying "Roqua"

I really doubt he would use another account-name.

 

[skavenhorde]

Really? I haven't been called Roqua and I'm not exactly a happy camper with the state of the industry. Ehh, nevermind it doesn't really matter anyways. I was just curious as to why his name was sometimes invoked in disgust aways back.

As for the corporations. Here is a famous saying:
"Build it and they will come"

 

[Benedict]

I'm not sure how familiar you are with economics so I won't drone out a lot of Economics 101 here. Just realise a basic truism: 10 smaller titles that turn a gross profit (sales - developer costs) of a million are worth less to a publisher than 1 title with a gross profit of a million. Not just because that one title gives a better opportunity for franchise building (very popular right now), but also because the end-margin of a single big title is easier to balance than the same margin of ten smaller ones.

Really? I'd have thought it was quite the opposite, an expected profit of £1m from 10 different games would tend to be far less volatile than an expected profit of £1m from a single big game that could tank (as many do). Risk adjusted return would be far better for a blend of small games.

 

[Brother None]

Really? I'd have thought it was quite the opposite, an expected profit of £1m from 10 different games would tend to be far less volatile than an expected profit of £1m from a single big game that could tank (as many do). Risk adjusted return would be far better for a blend of small games.

Yeah, one would hope, wouldn't they?

But the odd thing is not that Take-Two and EA are more interested in single-title big hits, the why of that has been covered (lower overhead, franchise building, makes investors happy). The odd thing is that the blend of small games is also a viable model, it's just relatively unexplored, as GhanBuriGhan said. I think the "ideal" situation to is not so much one in which we drop the whole idea of the high-stakes game being attractive to big publishers, this is just too inherent in our economic system (as Dhruin mentioned), but one in which more companies recognize the viability of low-risk low-profit production as an alternative to high-risk high-profit.

Right now, the only studio that jumps to mind that does this is Stardock.

 

[Benedict]

Yeah, one would hope, wouldn't they?

But the odd thing is not that Take-Two and EA are more interested in single-title big hits, the why of that has been covered (lower overhead, franchise building, makes investors happy). The odd thing is that the blend of small games is also a viable model, it's just relatively unexplored, as GhanBuriGhan said. I think the "ideal" situation to is not so much one in which we drop the whole idea of the high-stakes game being attractive to big publishers, this is just too inherent in our economic system (as Dhruin mentioned), but one in which more companies recognize the viability of low-risk low-profit production as an alternative to high-risk high-profit.

Right now, the only studio that jumps to mind that does this is Stardock.

I'm still not sure of the whole lower overhead & franchise building thing either personally . . . .

Same production staff spread across more projects, same management giving less time to each, why are the overheads necessarily higher? Especially if the majority of the smaller projects revolve heavily around existing engines & art assets and / or have centralised functions for e.g. engines / art assets / bug catching / play testing / publicity / human resources / accounting etc. Sure if badly run and disorganised it could get out of hand, but with the risks of single big projects spiralling badly out of control I'd have thought it was still a safer bet.

And for franchise building, look how well Spiderweb do. Franchises work well with small games too, eschalon's probably likely to have an easier run with their second book in many ways as well. Big franchises are probably easier to supervise & nurture & market & set up fan fiction and special editions & the surrounding stuff, but they can also get tarnished by a couple of dodgy titles fairly easily.

Anyway, this is probably pretty counter productive, I agree in general and agree with your conclusions, it's a real shame that this market hasn't taken off a bit better. I think the current economic situation & difficulties in raising capital could lead to a few more mid-range studios, which I'd like to see.