Quote:Original post by jfclavette Why hello Gamedev. It's been a while.
Anyway, I see that as a good thing. Has iD been relevent since... Doom 3 ? I mean, their main asset is/was John Carmack, but these days, he seems much more interested in spaceships than video games.
The design of their games has, IMHO, always been lackluster, which wasn't a problem back in the days where they pretty much invented the FPS genre and WERE the market. Now that competition has ramped up, it seems to me like they have lost their edge.
iD's money maker hasn't been the games themselves since back in their shareware days. Their real money maker now is licensing out their engine to other companies. They would be a valuable company even if they stopped making games themselves.
Old Username: Talroth
If your signature on a web forum takes up more space than your average post, then you are doing things wrong.
Quote:Original post by jfclavette Why hello Gamedev. It's been a while.
Anyway, I see that as a good thing. Has iD been relevent since... Doom 3 ? I mean, their main asset is/was John Carmack, but these days, he seems much more interested in spaceships than video games.
The design of their games has, IMHO, always been lackluster, which wasn't a problem back in the days where they pretty much invented the FPS genre and WERE the market. Now that competition has ramped up, it seems to me like they have lost their edge.
iD's money maker hasn't been the games themselves since back in their shareware days. Their real money maker now is licensing out their engine to other companies. They would be a valuable company even if they stopped making games themselves.
Yeah, except iD's tech 4 is ancient. No games have been released using tech 5 and the only games currently reported using it are Doom 4 and Rage. Then there's tech 6 somewhere in the very distant future. iD's engine licensing business doesn't seem THAT healthy to me when you compare it to Epic's or Crytek's.
[Edited by - jfclavette on June 24, 2009 6:09:16 PM]
I teleported home one night; With Ron and Sid and Meg; Ron stole Meggie's heart away; And I got Sydney's leg. <> I'm blogging, emo style
Quote:Original post by Alpha_ProgDes Maybe I'm just completely ignorant of how all of this works, but as big as id is couldn't they just become a publisher? Just like Nintendo and EA did?
I'm wondering why they didn't become a publisher like Valve. I guess though if they did go the on-line publishing route they would always be compared to the already established Steam.
Quote:Original post by Talroth iD's money maker hasn't been the games themselves since back in their shareware days. Their real money maker now is licensing out their engine to other companies. They would be a valuable company even if they stopped making games themselves.
Yeah, except iD's tech 4 is ancient. No games have been released tech 5 and the only games currently reported using it are Doom 4 and Rage. Then there's tech 6 somewhere in the very distant future. iD's engine licensing business doesn't seem THAT healthy to me when you compare it to Epic's or Crytek's.
This has been my impression as well. It seems like they've been riding on the id name rather than actually producing much of anything for quite a while now. id is very much a company whose reputation is based on nostalgia rather than actual relevance in the industry. Doom sells to nostalgic Doom fans, Quake sells to nostalgic Quake fans, Rage sells to... nostalgic Doom and Quake fans. Meanwhile Epic made easier to use engines and Crytek made more technically impressive engines and completely wrote them out of that market.
id as a company that exists now really hasn't done anything noteworthy for years and isn't showing any signs of turning that around.
I was sort of horrified about this at first, but I think it's actually an interesting decision. All their in house games have been massive commercial and critical hits - the hardcore gaming community seems to have this impression of Doom 3 having been a flop, but it was actually by far their best selling game. And while Return to Castle Wolfenstein was a massive hit and they had some early success with outsourcing their IP, their recent outsourced titles (ETQW, Quake 4) haven't been nearly as successful commercially or critically as their in house titles. So I see two big pressures for them to do this.
First, publishers seem to be tightening their belts and throwing their weight behind IP that they own rather than that of third party developers. For instance, I noticed a lot of fans complaining that Activision hasn't put much effort into pushing the new Wolfenstein - one of the biggest names in the genre. For a small independent studio that historically has only produced one title at a time and spends continually increasing development time (4 years for Doom 3, and about that long so far for Rage) on its titles to make sure they're cutting edge, every release needs to be a hit, or their independence is threatened. If Zenimax's marketing department can make a dusty crpg franchise from the 90s into a five million seller, imagine what they could do for Doom?
Second, they want the resources to be able to grow their in house development team, as they've been doing for the last couple years. Meaning, in theory, more titles more often, with better quality and less risk placed on each individual release.
This move actually makes sense for them, and as long as Carmack still gets to speak his mind, and release source code, and they aren't forced to release rushed products, I'll be happy.
Quote:Original post by LockePick Rage sells to... nostalgic Doom and Quake fans.
Given that it's not out yet, and given that it seems to be taking a somewhat different approach than their previous games, don't you think it's a bit premature to be dismissing Rage already?
