Behind Rockstar Games - Article in Wired
by Matt W · in General Discussion · 09/08/2002 (2:16 pm) · 40 replies
The Article: "The Bad Boys of Rockstar Games"
Wired, July 2002
I'm sure some of you have seen it, but it was an interesting read. (warning, a bit of vulgar language)
To summarize, Take Two saw how much "great" negative press Grand Theft Auto (the original) got and hoped to turn that into a "bad boy" image. Take Two founder Ryan Brant hired Terry Donovan and Terry's prep school friend Sam Houser to startup Rockstar as a new division.
Both were from music business families, and used this mostly second-hand knowledge to guide their marketing. quote: <"The video game industry is where the music industry was in 1960", said Donovan. Certainly the content is very sophisticated, but there are still relatively naive and unpolished marketing techniques.">
They organized regular loft parties (guests actually had to complete an interview to get in) and even had their own "street" clothing line in the UK. quote: <"By last winter the company was so much a part of youth culture that ecstasty pills were found stamped with its stylized R logo. (The company says it had no knowledge or involvement.)>
What keeps Rockstar ahead of the others? quote: <"Fuck the potions and magic spells" - teenage and twentysomething men want games as hip as their movies and music.>
quote: <"Basically," Donovan explained, "we're really good at two things: finishing games and making noise.">
Not all is well, at least if you're interested in business ethics. quote: <"Take Two has restated its last seven quarters of financial earnings, revealing improper reporting of revenue and expensese, as well as buybacks of its products from distributors. As of mid-May, the firm was reportedly under review by the SEC.">
Still, their stock has risen from $7 to $28 from September 2001 to May 2002. Looks like fraudulent records are only seen as a bad thing if you don't have great sales figures, or a very profitable image.
What else is not doing to well? New franchises. Out of all games planned only one (a fugitive crime "drama") is not a GTA/Smuggler's Run/Max Payne sequel/spin-off. This might work for a year or two... but after that, will people keep buying "Grand Theft Auto 7" or "Smuggler's Run 5: Yes, they need MORE guns!".
Oh, and for the gamer inside of all of us. Grand Theft Auto 4 will be a MMO game. Sounds cool.
To end it, a funny (but representative of the company's hip immaturity) quote from Donovan regarding the slow turn towards "mature" games following the success of Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.
quote: <"I think the videogame industry was actually crying out for us," he said. "We don't make games about Puff-the-fucking-Magic Dragon">
Heh, I guess he didn't know what that song was about then... did he?
Wired, July 2002
I'm sure some of you have seen it, but it was an interesting read. (warning, a bit of vulgar language)
To summarize, Take Two saw how much "great" negative press Grand Theft Auto (the original) got and hoped to turn that into a "bad boy" image. Take Two founder Ryan Brant hired Terry Donovan and Terry's prep school friend Sam Houser to startup Rockstar as a new division.
Both were from music business families, and used this mostly second-hand knowledge to guide their marketing. quote: <"The video game industry is where the music industry was in 1960", said Donovan. Certainly the content is very sophisticated, but there are still relatively naive and unpolished marketing techniques.">
They organized regular loft parties (guests actually had to complete an interview to get in) and even had their own "street" clothing line in the UK. quote: <"By last winter the company was so much a part of youth culture that ecstasty pills were found stamped with its stylized R logo. (The company says it had no knowledge or involvement.)>
What keeps Rockstar ahead of the others? quote: <"Fuck the potions and magic spells" - teenage and twentysomething men want games as hip as their movies and music.>
quote: <"Basically," Donovan explained, "we're really good at two things: finishing games and making noise.">
Not all is well, at least if you're interested in business ethics. quote: <"Take Two has restated its last seven quarters of financial earnings, revealing improper reporting of revenue and expensese, as well as buybacks of its products from distributors. As of mid-May, the firm was reportedly under review by the SEC.">
Still, their stock has risen from $7 to $28 from September 2001 to May 2002. Looks like fraudulent records are only seen as a bad thing if you don't have great sales figures, or a very profitable image.
What else is not doing to well? New franchises. Out of all games planned only one (a fugitive crime "drama") is not a GTA/Smuggler's Run/Max Payne sequel/spin-off. This might work for a year or two... but after that, will people keep buying "Grand Theft Auto 7" or "Smuggler's Run 5: Yes, they need MORE guns!".
Oh, and for the gamer inside of all of us. Grand Theft Auto 4 will be a MMO game. Sounds cool.
To end it, a funny (but representative of the company's hip immaturity) quote from Donovan regarding the slow turn towards "mature" games following the success of Grand Theft Auto and Max Payne.
quote: <"I think the videogame industry was actually crying out for us," he said. "We don't make games about Puff-the-fucking-Magic Dragon">
Heh, I guess he didn't know what that song was about then... did he?
#2
Also, what exactly are his credentials beyond his dad directing music videos (he made the very popular Robert Palmer "Simply Irresistable" video) and having a friend who needed someone who could run with the bad-boy image?
09/09/2002 (1:23 pm)
Yeah, I noticed that quote myself. Of course, think about it. Do you think publishers care if the game's good if people buy a lot of it?Also, what exactly are his credentials beyond his dad directing music videos (he made the very popular Robert Palmer "Simply Irresistable" video) and having a friend who needed someone who could run with the bad-boy image?
#3
Take Two is TWO the extreme!
*sign of the devil*
09/09/2002 (2:09 pm)
Ahh man, someone has to say itTake Two is TWO the extreme!
*sign of the devil*
#5
Jeremy Tilton
Gamer (The only thing that SHOULD matter)
09/09/2002 (3:03 pm)
GTA4 is gonna be MMO? Is that rumor, or is there a release from Rockstar to back that up, cuz that'd be sweet ass! And is this guy badmouthing Rockstar? Rockstar has my respect of being one of the finest game development companies out there. Who cares if we end up buying GTA7..if Rockstar continues to raise the bar like they have with GTA3 and will soon with GTA:Vice City, what's the complaint? I'll buy GTA9999999 if it is as wonderfully designed as GTA3 was. Screw that guy! So to counter this guy's idiotic ramblings, I believe I will do a free advertisement for Rockstar's "inability to create a new idea"...BUY VICE CITY! It's gonna RUUUUULE!Jeremy Tilton
Gamer (The only thing that SHOULD matter)
#6
09/09/2002 (3:41 pm)
No, I really liked Max Payne and though I never played GTA3, the concept is ingenious, however I don't like this guy who thinks the quality is for granted and the marketing makes the product...
#7
They have nothing to do with the development of quality games, just helping provide some funding and PR for them.
Chances are, all Rockstar is wanting from Vice City is identical gameplay with a few new cars, music, guns, missions, and a new city. They make it clear they're not trying to pave a new road, just give casual adult gamers what they want. I see Grand Theft Auto like the movie Scream. The first one wasn't too bad, but it sold well enough to warrant a few sequels. Eventually, it just turned into a boring mass of rehashed everything.
Thanks for the post Jeremy. Reminds me of what I'm missing on Gamespy's forum.
I agree with you Max. Game developers shouldn't like his idea that marketing makes the product, but I've got a feeling his words hold more truth than we'd like to admit. Afterall, there are people like Jeremy.
09/09/2002 (3:59 pm)
Uh, Rockstar is a publisher.They have nothing to do with the development of quality games, just helping provide some funding and PR for them.
Chances are, all Rockstar is wanting from Vice City is identical gameplay with a few new cars, music, guns, missions, and a new city. They make it clear they're not trying to pave a new road, just give casual adult gamers what they want. I see Grand Theft Auto like the movie Scream. The first one wasn't too bad, but it sold well enough to warrant a few sequels. Eventually, it just turned into a boring mass of rehashed everything.
Thanks for the post Jeremy. Reminds me of what I'm missing on Gamespy's forum.
I agree with you Max. Game developers shouldn't like his idea that marketing makes the product, but I've got a feeling his words hold more truth than we'd like to admit. Afterall, there are people like Jeremy.
#8
-Barzahd
09/09/2002 (5:23 pm)
What issue of Wired is that in? I never saw that article... I have GTA3, and it is a truly impressive and ingenius game. I've also played some very early demos of GTA:Vice City, and it blows GTA3 totally away. Another fact is, they completely took apart and rebuilt the game engine, and made it 100 times better than GTA3. Rockstar is trying to improve the realism of its games, and make its games more appealing to even thier biggest fans, for lack of a better word. Quality, though not mentioned, has always gone into Rockstar's games without saying. So the opinion of the quality being 'taken for granted' is bullshit in my book (no offense intended). Despite the few incidents with Rockstar's marketing schemes (which I have done research and proved that is indeed true), they still make an incredible series of games. As a matter of fact, doesn't Rockstar own Take 2? I remember reading that somewhere, but I'm not completely sure if it's true. Or peraps it's the other way around. All I have to say is, I have every game published by Rockstar, and I am disappointed in any of them. I agree with some of the things here that were said, but I still cannot determine if in fact Rockstar is being badmouthed. If so, the person doing so needs to catch up on thier research a little before throwing around opinions and possible accusations. That's my thoughts on it.... Anybody else?-Barzahd
#9
09/09/2002 (5:25 pm)
o sry I missed thi issue on the top---------- my bad.
#10
Rockstar/Take2 owns Rockstar Studios (formerly DMA Design, the people behind GTA1,2,3 not to mention a lot of classic games like Menace, Blood Money and Lemmings).
In any case, I think they will soon learn (if they haven't already) that their views are flawed and if they release poor games they will quickly soil their reputation forever.
GTA3 sold well because it was a solid game. Yes, the controversy helped, but that was just an initial kick. Contrast that to State of Emergency which sold pretty well for a couple of weeks based on GTA3's success and hype but then nose-dived when people realized via word of mouth that it sucked. A couple more SOEs instead of GTA3s and they can kiss all the millions they've spent on brand promotion goodbye.
And to answer the post two up, its actually Take2 that is the parent company. Rockstar is one of its brands. And I have to disagree with your statement about Rockstar games being quality. GTA3 was great but what else have they done? They did publish Max Payne on consoles, but they just bought the console rights to that, Remedy developed the original game. Everything else they've published has been rather poor if you ask me.
09/09/2002 (6:25 pm)
Rockstar isn't _just_ a publisher.Rockstar/Take2 owns Rockstar Studios (formerly DMA Design, the people behind GTA1,2,3 not to mention a lot of classic games like Menace, Blood Money and Lemmings).
In any case, I think they will soon learn (if they haven't already) that their views are flawed and if they release poor games they will quickly soil their reputation forever.
GTA3 sold well because it was a solid game. Yes, the controversy helped, but that was just an initial kick. Contrast that to State of Emergency which sold pretty well for a couple of weeks based on GTA3's success and hype but then nose-dived when people realized via word of mouth that it sucked. A couple more SOEs instead of GTA3s and they can kiss all the millions they've spent on brand promotion goodbye.
And to answer the post two up, its actually Take2 that is the parent company. Rockstar is one of its brands. And I have to disagree with your statement about Rockstar games being quality. GTA3 was great but what else have they done? They did publish Max Payne on consoles, but they just bought the console rights to that, Remedy developed the original game. Everything else they've published has been rather poor if you ask me.
#11
Matt ... sorry to spoil this...but that song has nothing to do with "Mary Jane".
Do a search on urban myths and legends...
Hmm Rockstar games...ever see the film Fight Club?
Isn't it ironic that Rockstar tries to present itself as a bunch of "space monkey Tyler Durden" followers, out to form a game industry revolution...they got the attitude, they got the clothes, they got the look...but underneith it all they are a buisness out to make sales, by telling us what they think we, as gamers, should idolize... but isn't this the same sort of buisness practice that drove the characters in Fight Club to start thier revolution?
I've only ever played GTA1...and got board of it quickly...I'll have to admit that GTA3 sounds sorta fun (but with out a PSX2, whatch'a gonna do? :P ) ... But the new Vice City...looks...well honestly...it looks like GTA3 with new graphics and sounds :(
09/09/2002 (8:23 pm)
Puff the Magic Dragon!?Matt ... sorry to spoil this...but that song has nothing to do with "Mary Jane".
Do a search on urban myths and legends...
Hmm Rockstar games...ever see the film Fight Club?
Isn't it ironic that Rockstar tries to present itself as a bunch of "space monkey Tyler Durden" followers, out to form a game industry revolution...they got the attitude, they got the clothes, they got the look...but underneith it all they are a buisness out to make sales, by telling us what they think we, as gamers, should idolize... but isn't this the same sort of buisness practice that drove the characters in Fight Club to start thier revolution?
I've only ever played GTA1...and got board of it quickly...I'll have to admit that GTA3 sounds sorta fun (but with out a PSX2, whatch'a gonna do? :P ) ... But the new Vice City...looks...well honestly...it looks like GTA3 with new graphics and sounds :(
#12
Buy the PC version. :)
As for the hype, every industry (especially media based) has its 'shock jockeys'. Just reminds me of Mike Wilson, Vince Desi, etc etc. Out to be a rebel and create a stink just to make a buck off the controversy. That's marketing I guess. I usually laugh and move on. ;)
09/09/2002 (9:23 pm)
Quote:but with out a PSX2, whatch'a gonna do? :P
Buy the PC version. :)
As for the hype, every industry (especially media based) has its 'shock jockeys'. Just reminds me of Mike Wilson, Vince Desi, etc etc. Out to be a rebel and create a stink just to make a buck off the controversy. That's marketing I guess. I usually laugh and move on. ;)
#13
But I have to say, Rockstar may have made some great games. But they still don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the quality and importance of a game. The way they talk about the industry is "inmature"
*sorry for any mis-spells, I'm really tired*
09/09/2002 (10:25 pm)
Well Vice city is GTA3 with better graphics and sounds. But the point is to make the game better. If you look at the entire line of GTA games, same thing. Just better FX each time. The one thing I think that is the big fix-ups in Vice city are #1 Better fighting #2 Motorcycles #3 Better people animations (example: Roller Blading, Swimming, ect...) and #5 All the city is availible right away.But I have to say, Rockstar may have made some great games. But they still don't know what they're talking about when it comes to the quality and importance of a game. The way they talk about the industry is "inmature"
*sorry for any mis-spells, I'm really tired*
#14
09/09/2002 (10:31 pm)
I just found out that helicopters will be in it too :0! Just thought I would add this... Just because... you know... it's 11:45pm and I have nothing else to say... sorry.
#15
As for Rockstar, they're a publisher who is buying development studios and renaming them to include "Rockstar" in the name. They want to be tied very closely to the development, but unless major cash is changing hands they're probably not going to be much more involved in development than most publishers.
Just because Rockstar's in their name, doesn't mean Rockstar makes the game. In fact, they expanded just a month back by buying up Barking Dog Studios and calling it "Rockstar North".
The article did mention how basing your business on hype can really cause a quick collapse if you release a few failures. The article referred to Psygnosis as an example with the Wipeout series.
09/09/2002 (10:38 pm)
Urban legend or not, I thought it was funny.As for Rockstar, they're a publisher who is buying development studios and renaming them to include "Rockstar" in the name. They want to be tied very closely to the development, but unless major cash is changing hands they're probably not going to be much more involved in development than most publishers.
Just because Rockstar's in their name, doesn't mean Rockstar makes the game. In fact, they expanded just a month back by buying up Barking Dog Studios and calling it "Rockstar North".
The article did mention how basing your business on hype can really cause a quick collapse if you release a few failures. The article referred to Psygnosis as an example with the Wipeout series.
#16
But the buzz around both games is what attracted me to either. They must be doing something right.
~myk
09/10/2002 (8:53 am)
I disliked state of emergency (too repetitive) and didnt really get into GTA3. In both games I found myself nagging about the animations(or lack there of)and control issues.But the buzz around both games is what attracted me to either. They must be doing something right.
~myk
#17
"The Graphics Suck" what people often overlook with graphics is the scope of the graphics. Grand Theft Auto 3 gave gamers a world where they were essentially free to roam around as they wish, and interact with in any fashion they wish. The worlds are huge, and consist of pretty damn good detail considering its size.
Lots of people think that Vice City is going to be just "More guns" and "More cars". But if anyone actually took half a second to look at the changes..yeah, most of the changes include "more stuff", but some of it is "better stuff". Example: Cops will interact with gang members now. This isn't just more of what the "Dumb Gamer" likes..this is solid content. And if you windbags would stop trying to turn controversy into pop-culture with a short lifespan you'd see that. Try to look at the game from a different perspective (we are all aspiring game DEVELOPERS right?), ignore the fact that its a game that glorifies killing people, and look at the excellency in DESIGN.
"People like Jeremy". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but "people like me" have valid opinions based on more than what's on the surface. "People like me" use intelligence as well as objectiveness to form opinions, and can manage to ignore what everyone else says and thinks to come up with something that isn't necessarily mainstream, but an opinion that truly belongs to them.
09/10/2002 (9:34 am)
My bad, I didn't get the distinction. Ok, who cares what the publisher thinks. But those who didn't like Grand Theft Auto 3 are very superficial. I've heard the complaints all too often: "The Graphics Suck" what people often overlook with graphics is the scope of the graphics. Grand Theft Auto 3 gave gamers a world where they were essentially free to roam around as they wish, and interact with in any fashion they wish. The worlds are huge, and consist of pretty damn good detail considering its size.
Lots of people think that Vice City is going to be just "More guns" and "More cars". But if anyone actually took half a second to look at the changes..yeah, most of the changes include "more stuff", but some of it is "better stuff". Example: Cops will interact with gang members now. This isn't just more of what the "Dumb Gamer" likes..this is solid content. And if you windbags would stop trying to turn controversy into pop-culture with a short lifespan you'd see that. Try to look at the game from a different perspective (we are all aspiring game DEVELOPERS right?), ignore the fact that its a game that glorifies killing people, and look at the excellency in DESIGN.
"People like Jeremy". I'm not quite sure what you mean by that, but "people like me" have valid opinions based on more than what's on the surface. "People like me" use intelligence as well as objectiveness to form opinions, and can manage to ignore what everyone else says and thinks to come up with something that isn't necessarily mainstream, but an opinion that truly belongs to them.
#18
Okay, then lets replace the GTA3 player character's model with something like Mario. Take all the gangster's models out and replace them with "happy-happy-joy-joy!" type mushroom people models. Take the cars out and replace them with go-karts. Take the guns out and replace them with water pistols. Change the city textures to resemble some sort of fairytale castle. take all the "offensive" sounds out and replace them with family friendly fluff...In short remove the controversial elements but keep the gameplay and game engine exactly the same...down to the character movements, even level design...would the game still have an excellent design?
Would you walk into a store to buy the game if it had the above graphics/sound/theme changes and titled something like "Bobcat Bobs Great Adventure!"? If so would you push your friends to buy it, singing praises about it's great gameplay design on webboards such as this one? Would you even proclame that the game was even better then that other "family fun contender" Mario?
09/10/2002 (5:49 pm)
Quote:
ignore the fact that its a game that glorifies killing people, and look at the excellency in DESIGN.
Okay, then lets replace the GTA3 player character's model with something like Mario. Take all the gangster's models out and replace them with "happy-happy-joy-joy!" type mushroom people models. Take the cars out and replace them with go-karts. Take the guns out and replace them with water pistols. Change the city textures to resemble some sort of fairytale castle. take all the "offensive" sounds out and replace them with family friendly fluff...In short remove the controversial elements but keep the gameplay and game engine exactly the same...down to the character movements, even level design...would the game still have an excellent design?
Would you walk into a store to buy the game if it had the above graphics/sound/theme changes and titled something like "Bobcat Bobs Great Adventure!"? If so would you push your friends to buy it, singing praises about it's great gameplay design on webboards such as this one? Would you even proclame that the game was even better then that other "family fun contender" Mario?
#19
The idea behind the game was nothing new. The original GTAs had the exact same concept. Yet those games didn't do anywhere near as good as GTA3 did. Now you wanna tell me that those games were equally as hyped about when they came out? I remember the times, and it wasn't. Nothing has changed in the grand theft auto universe as far as concept. It has always been violent. GTA3 was an epic hit because of the level of improvement it displayed, not only over its own series, but games all around. Mentioned earlier in this thread, State of Emergency shared the same hype but it didn't anywhere near as good as GTA3. I mean, it was the same thing..killing a bunch of people, etc. But I hated it. So you wanna tell me that GTA3's hype was all that got it sold, when earlier installments, and conceptual clones were bombs in comparison? Hey, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But you know what they say: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one." Some of us choose to back our opinions with facts though..try that.
09/10/2002 (8:36 pm)
I was interested to see if there were any intelligent replies to what I said....I'm still looking... I mean, I saw someone spouting something about how graphics and character development isn't a part of design, but I must've imagined it, because noone would be that STUPID. Design is a general term. Design is all inclusive. Design entails gameplay, graphics, sound, as well as many different choices as to what world the game will take place in, what kind of story, and who the character will be. I'm not saying the hype around GTA3 didn't help sell copies, I'm saying the good game design behind it kept it selling games long after the hype died down. The idea behind the game was nothing new. The original GTAs had the exact same concept. Yet those games didn't do anywhere near as good as GTA3 did. Now you wanna tell me that those games were equally as hyped about when they came out? I remember the times, and it wasn't. Nothing has changed in the grand theft auto universe as far as concept. It has always been violent. GTA3 was an epic hit because of the level of improvement it displayed, not only over its own series, but games all around. Mentioned earlier in this thread, State of Emergency shared the same hype but it didn't anywhere near as good as GTA3. I mean, it was the same thing..killing a bunch of people, etc. But I hated it. So you wanna tell me that GTA3's hype was all that got it sold, when earlier installments, and conceptual clones were bombs in comparison? Hey, I guess everyone is entitled to their own opinions. But you know what they say: "Opinions are like assholes, everyone's got one." Some of us choose to back our opinions with facts though..try that.
#20
You cannot quantify that as design, the true measure of the game design takes into account all the things you just mentioned as "replacing". If you replace all those components, all you are really measuring is the "mechanics" of the game or more aptly the design of the mechanics. You really cannot separate game play from the setting in an overly complex and immersive game such as GTA3. This is an RPG You play the life of a street thug. Without the setting, it is still an RPG, but only successful if all the items you mentioned changing are changed proportionately and in a manner that meshes as well as the current GTA3 does. In the case of GTA3 they did a wonderful job of meshing in all those elements to produce a final immersive product.
However, in your example as long as they have the immersive and cohesive quality, yes it would stand up. GTA3 is revolutionary in the level of immersion developed into the game. The only real problem with the example you have listed if that once you change the superficial looks of the game and some of the storyline content, with the same engine/mechanics, all you really have is a clone. So if you are comparing it in a market where GTA3 exists... It would probably fail being a second comer, or at least be profitable in terms of current industry views.
09/11/2002 (9:42 am)
>Take the guns out and replace them with water pistols. >Change the city textures to resemble some sort of >fairytale castle. take all the "offensive" sounds out >and replace them with family friendly fluff...In short >remove the controversial elements but keep the game >play and game engine exactly the same...down to the >character movements, even level design...would the game >still have an excellent design? You cannot quantify that as design, the true measure of the game design takes into account all the things you just mentioned as "replacing". If you replace all those components, all you are really measuring is the "mechanics" of the game or more aptly the design of the mechanics. You really cannot separate game play from the setting in an overly complex and immersive game such as GTA3. This is an RPG You play the life of a street thug. Without the setting, it is still an RPG, but only successful if all the items you mentioned changing are changed proportionately and in a manner that meshes as well as the current GTA3 does. In the case of GTA3 they did a wonderful job of meshing in all those elements to produce a final immersive product.
However, in your example as long as they have the immersive and cohesive quality, yes it would stand up. GTA3 is revolutionary in the level of immersion developed into the game. The only real problem with the example you have listed if that once you change the superficial looks of the game and some of the storyline content, with the same engine/mechanics, all you really have is a clone. So if you are comparing it in a market where GTA3 exists... It would probably fail being a second comer, or at least be profitable in terms of current industry views.
Torque Owner Max Robinson
Hopefully some people will still hold out to innovative ideas on gameplay and backstory. Like you said, we can't just have the same old stories over and over or else it will lose the novelty. IMO part of what makes GTA is that not many games reward you for being a ruthless criminal/killer in a modern day, semi-realistic setting, so it is interesting to most people.