Has Rare Lost Touch With The Gaming Industry?

In an interesting interview this week at 1up.com, Peter Moore, now at Electronic Arts, believes the skillset that Rare holds is a bit dated for our gaming industry. Moore, best known in his role of VP at Microsoft in their Interactive Entertainment Business division, understands how great Rare and their games once were but seems to believe the industry has passed them by.

Looking at their latest Microsoft titles, mainly Perfect Dark Zero, Viva Pinata and Kameo: Elements of Power, it’s not hard to believe his statements as fact. None of the titles have blown away a market full of Grand Theft Autos, Halo’s and other top selling titles. None of their games hit the epic review scores of Bioshock or Crysis. It’s not all first person shooters are taking the big sales numbers; Spore was given rave reviews by online review sites (sans Amazon) and that’s a completely different style of game.

Popcap’s Peggle has had more fame and glory than some of the bigger titles from Rare, probably made with less money. Is Rare a dying breed of developers with no good direction to react to the changing ways of the game industry?

No. Peter Moore is missing a big part of the changes in Rare since their 2002 purchase by Microsoft. The major difference is… Microsoft. Microsoft had plans to make Rare Ltd as successful on their own console as Rare had with the Nintendo 64. Moore says:

“I thought ultimately [Viva Pinata] would be very successful — and you know, Microsoft, we’d had a tough time getting Rare back — Perfect Dark Zero was a launch title and didn’t do as well as Perfect Dark… but we were trying all kinds of classic Rare stuff and unfortunately I think the industry had past Rare by — it’s a strong statement but what they were good at, new consumers didn’t care about anymore, and it was tough because they were trying very hard — [original Rare founders] Chris and Tim Stamper were still there — to try and recreate the glory years of Rare, which is the reason Microsoft paid a lot of money for them and I spent a lot of time getting on a train to Twycross to meet them. Great people. But their skillsets were from a different time and a different place and were not applicable in today’s market.” (1up)

Perhaps if Rare had the ability to pick and choose their own platform for their own desires and innovation they’d have a killer Wii game for the market. Nintendo and Rare had a great partnership in the making of Donkey Kong Country, a product they couldn’t do on their own due to the intellectual properties but managed to create a memorable franchise when combining forces. Imagine, taking Donkey Kong to such awesome levels with a ground breaking and well crafted title with high quality graphics on a low quality system.

What about GoldenEye 007? A game that changed the first person shooter landscape on the console and sold over 8-million copies on a Nintendo platform. Along with their hot back log of titles is that of BattleToads, a game which was well received by reviewers but insanely difficult for gamers to master. Of course, Banjo-Kazooie was another great title from the folks at Rare, most of which was made famous on a non-Microsoft console.

What’s the lesson? Don’t point fingers at the creative talents behind the projects and future decisions when you’re boxed into a single console under someone elses name. For a developer to thrive and grow they need space to do it, they need to be fully able to access all the gaming hardware in the industry. Microsoft tried to fit a round peg and a square hole and paid $375 million to figure it out.

0 thoughts on “Has Rare Lost Touch With The Gaming Industry?”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Post

3 Reasons Publishers Desire Us to Keep Old Games3 Reasons Publishers Desire Us to Keep Old Games

When we invest in a new video game we want to feel satisfied by the content supplied in the game, we want to know we’re getting our moneys worth in the investment. Publishers, on the other hand, want us to keep our old games so they stay out of the used market. A publisher does not make a dime on used game sales. Their primary weapon to stop game sales? Downloadable Content (DLC).

1. Publishers Spend Lots on Marketing

A great example being GTA IV, hardcore gamers have a short attention span and live on hype more than physical games. Today, games live in press releases, demos, cinematic and live gameplay footage at conferences and on the web. Then, a game hits the shelves and sells millions of copies for a week or two before it’s forgotten. Publishers have marketed their game well, spent thousands on conference booths, streaming video bandwidth and rushing game demos through development and testing cycles early to get eyes on their titles.

Let’s face it, gamers that scrambled to buy Grant Theft Auto IV have moved onto the next big title or have decided to go outside for some fresh air (probably the former). Hardcore gamers consumes games like candy, sells them off for store credit and works towards their next purchase.

2. Publishers Want Loyalty

DLC breaths new life into old games, making them remain valuable for months after the hype and excitement has died. We’re now spending USD $60.00 for some of these new “current generation” game titles for a few days or weeks of excitement. Free downloadable content brings new reasons to play our “old stale” games and allows us to feel comfortable about our 60 bucks spent on a title.

Rainbow Six Vegas 2 is receiving a new “Fan Pack” for gamers to re-energize themselves about the “old” sequel to Rainbox Six Vegas. A game released in March is considered old by gamers, probably rarely played on Xbox Live anymore and needs something to keep the fans interested. This helps build loyalty to your product so the next franchise title which is released has a better chance of being purchased by your fan base because they can look forward to additional free content in the future.

3. Publishers Hate Used Games

Publishers are helping stick those games in the hands of the gamers for a longer period of time by supplying free add-on packs. Why would you re-sell your precious title back to the store when you could hold it and wait for potential DLC?

Publishers receive no revenue from the resale of a video game so it’s in their best interest to keep it out of the used markets. If there is a chance your beloved game will receive new features, at no cost to you, wouldn’t you hold off from selling it to see what’s coming?

Once a gamer has sold their title to a retail chain for pennies they’re unlikely to re-buy the title with the typical 80% markup when DLC arrives. They may opt to borrow a friends copy or rent the title rather than re-purchase it; neither fair well for the publisher in terms of revenue.

Games are expensive. Consumers must be wise to the best value in their video game titles and publishers want you to choose them for your gaming entertainment. Competition is high, profit margins are low and the market is all about sales volume. Publishers want repeat customers, people who feel their games are valuable before and after the purchase and are willing to share their loyalties with others.

Do you collect old console games, or do you sell them off to game stores and/or eBay? Would you consider holding off a sale if there was a great chance of new downloadable content?

Episode 245: Hello 2012Episode 245: Hello 2012

This week is double-stuffed full of goodness, with over two hours of podcast, as Jonah, Paul and Jordan cover not only the news of the last week, but also recap 2011, talking about games that pleased and disappointed them.

Aside from the biggest news of 2011, the current news items the gang listed to include:

  • Microsoft, Nintendo, Sony all pull support from SOPA – sort of
  • Wii U launch price expected to be $399
  • Guitar Hero may return in 2012
  • Judge ruling deals Silicon Knights a serious blow in suit against Epic Games
  • FlatOut 3 dev calls Modern Warfare 3 a “beta
  • Bioware defends The Old Republic subscription model, teases free-to-play for older IPs

The podcast also received a ton of new Reader Feedback, while the Question of the Week is “Which would you rather game on – a handheld console or a mobile device?”

Beauty of Micro-transaction MMO’sBeauty of Micro-transaction MMO’s

Taken from Florensia OnlineThere is room to grow in the world of massive multiplayer online gaming. A large online community should not have to subscribe to a monthly charge to play great MMORPG’s because there are other known models that work, including the micro-transaction based MMO.

At first, this sounds like a dirty word, micro-transaction. Often we relate it with being “nickle and dimed” through a video game by means of dirty marketing which feeds our enthusiastic gamer addiction. Put this thought aside for a minute and keep an open mind.

Imagine a game with worlds the size of World of Warcraft and stories as in-depth as Guild Wars (which is not monthly itself) but free from monthly payments (or “playments” a new term that needs to be coined). The reason behind the monthly charge covers service fees, technical support staff, bandwidth, servers and sheer volume of Activision Blizzards user base.

The micro-transaction concept could still help pay for all the overhead of running an online gaming business because gamers tend to be over-enthusiastic about their great addictive games. If you build a game with excellent content, replay value and strive for a community atmosphere a micro-transaction title can work just as well as a subscription based game.

One beautiful aspect to micro-transaction models is paying for content when you’re willing to pay. This includes cosmetic character alterations, basic needs items (health potions) and other products to enhance the playability of the game without requiring the gamer to do so. There will be some gamers that use this as a “free ride” and never buy anything while other gamers spend way too much because they have expendable income which helps balance out costs.

(more…)