Why Are There No "Prestige Games?"

Last month, Capcom announced that it was dissolving Clover Studios, the developers of Viewtiful Joe and Okami. The announcement came a bare month after the release of Okami, a game that has received rave reviews virtually across the board, and boasts an astounding Metacritic score of 93. Game Informer, IGN, and EGM all awarded Okami the title of "Game of the Month."

Why are they dissolving Clover Studios? Because of Okami's "disappointing sales."

Last year, Majesco, a smaller publisher best known for its GameBoy Advance titles, released Psychonauts, a game created by Tim Schafer--famous for his work on the old LucasArts Adventures. Psychonauts had originally been commissioned by Microsoft, but MS dropped it during development, and Majesco picked up the game. It received rave reviews virtally across the board, and boasts a noticeably high Metacritic score of 86. Psychonauts received awards from the British Academy, IGN, EGM, and PC Gamer, as well as a Game Developers Choice Award, arguably the most prestigious award in the field.

Industry scuttlebut says that Psychonauts has sold fewer than 50,000 copies; I don't know the game's budget, but given the quality of its graphics, the size of the game, and release on multiple platforms, I'd be astonished if it were under $5m. Majesco lost its shirt, in other words--and being a smaller publisher, it ran into big trouble as a result, and was forced to cut way back, and was for a time threatened with NASDAQ delisting.

The year before, UbiSoft released Beyond Good and Evil, which was created by Michael Ancel, one of the creators of the Rayman franchise. It was originally intended to be the first game in a series. Despite glowing reviews, and a Metacritic score of 87, Ubisoft viewed its sales as "disappointing," and there will be no sequels. Beyond Good and Evil received awards from IGN, Tech TV, and Play Magazine, as well as the "Best Gameplay" Award at the Leipzig Games Conference.

In other words, all three of these games were developed by creators with sterling reputations and a history of excellent past work; all three received glowing reviews and multiple awards; and in all three cases, they are viewed as "failures." Which I presume all three are, on a pure ROI basis.

Are there analogous products in other media?

Certainly. In film, for example, people often talk of "prestige films." Prestige films are not expected to do blockbuster numbers at the box office; prestige films are funded by studios for several reasons, but all of them center on the idea of adding luster to the studio's reputation, and ensuring that others in the industry view the studio as an attractive partner for future projects. Prestige films are typically made at somewhat lower budgets, and actors who wish to be involved in a prestige film are often asked to accept lower rates of pay than they would for most of the projects on which they work--and actors are typically willing to do so, as prestige films often redound to the benefit of their own reputation as actors. Prestige films often dominate the awards, and studios often trumpet their association with prestige films as a means of ensuring that reviewers, and industry talent, are more eager to engage with the studio in future.

In other words, prestige films get made, and get attention, even though they are often economically marginal or even "failures" (in a pure ROI sense), because studios understand that there are real (if intangible) benefits from being associated with prestige films.

The same is true in publishing; the sorts of books that win awards are not, typically, the sorts of books that sell best. Yet publishers are eager to be associated with award-winning books, and trumpet books and authors who do win awards. They understand that having a reputation as being a publisher of fine literary works will make authors and agents more eager to do business with them, and reviewers more willing to take a look at the next book they push. As an example, I know a science fiction writer who continues to command advances in the $100,000 range, despite the fact that nothing he has written in the last 20 years has earned out (that is, earned enough in royalties to recoup his advance)--because he is a multiple Hugo and Nebula Award-winning novelist, with an excellent reputation in the field, and his name in the publisher's catalog is a draw for others, and adds luster to the publisher's reputation.

Book publishers, too, understand that a commercially marginal book, or even one that loses money, can still provide real, if intangible benefits that ultimately redound to the bottom line.

Why is this viewed as impossible in games?

Suppose Capcom, instead of closing Clover Studios and muttering about "disappointing sales" had trumpetted Okami's critical success, instructed its publicists to attempt to interest both game and tech media in presentations of art from this beautiful and visually stunning game, and announced their strong support for innovation and creativity in future? They might have produced greater interest in, and sales for, the game, but more importantly, could have worked to establish for Capcom what no company other than Nintendo has in the industry today--a reputation for actually caring about gameplay.

Could Ubisoft not have done the same with Beyond Good and Evil? And since Ubisoft is in direct competition in most of the cities where it has studios with EA, which has a reputation for mistreating its staff and a lack of innovation, would this not also have benefitted their recruiting efforts?

Psychonauts is perhaps a more difficult story--Majesco didn't have the financial resources to deal with its failure. But in general, when you have lemons, why not make lemonade? Why not emphasize the critical success, and gain what you can from it, rather than retreating in shame?

Wouldn't we all--the industry and gamers alike--be better served by businesses which understand that, sure, the bottom line is the end game--but that there are multiple routes to the goal, and that sales alone are not the sole measure of a game's value?

Let us have "prestige games"--and let us have publishers who take pride in them.