Industry must change the way it markets games - Dyack

By Tom Bramwell Published 30 April, 2007

And stop calling me God.

Game God Denis Dyack, boss of Silicon Knights, believes that the games industry needs to radically reconsider the way it markets its output.

Dyack is still nursing the wounds inflicted upon Too Human at E3 in 2006 when SK's Xbox 360 exclusive was ripped apart by mean old journalists.

"We're getting to the point where we don't ever want to show a game again until it's finished. It's almost pointless," Dyack said in an interview with our sister-site GamesIndustry.biz.

"The media has a hard time with looking at games before they're done. If you take the movie industry as an example, how often do you see a movie before it's completed? You don't. I think our industry needs to start doing that too."

Dyack also reckons the press needs to be more critical. "I hate previews and interviews where a writer says how they see a game maker as a 'God'," he says. "They should be intimidating him, they should be his critic. Every time a writer refers to a developer as a 'game God' I vomit internally." Oops.

What's more, Dyack reckons that most of the industry wants to shift toward a model similar to the one seen with films, and apparently even Microsoft's marketing guys are with him.

"For the marketing people at Microsoft it's their dream. Quite frankly it's a dream of a lot of marketing people in this industry because it's a model that works and is reliable," he claimed.

For more from Dyack, check out the rest of the GamesIndustry.biz interview.

Picture of Tom.

About Tom Bramwell

Tom is Operations director of Eurogamer Network and Editor-at-Large of Eurogamer.net. He joined the company in February 2000.

Read more articles from Tom by visiting the Tom Bramwell archive page.

You may also like...

Comments (44) Latest comment 5 years ago

Comments threads automatically close after 30 days, but please feel free to continue chatting on the forum!

  • IAmBatman #1 5 years ago

    > how often do you see a movie before it's completed

    You see clips from uncompleted movies very often.

  • krudster #2 5 years ago

    I'm quite happy to crucify a game when it's deserved (see Driv3r review), but sadly the industry *really* doesn't like people being over critical of their games.

    It's all very well saying that us journos should be "intimidating" developers and so on (I agree with him), but I can personally guarantee that we wouldn't get away with it, or be allowed to forget it by the people running the events.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 10:39

  • The-Bodybuilder #3 5 years ago

    He's a whiner, but he does have a point.
    Sometimes, game journalists can't see beyond a demo.

    But in the case of too human, if he wants to blame someone, blame MS.

  • bonker #4 5 years ago

    Bleat on!

    If this guy hasn't got over 'his' E3 mauling yet then maybe he should be on a different job ...

  • The-Bodybuilder #5 5 years ago

    @ Krudster
    What exactly are the repercussions of doing so?

  • bonker #6 5 years ago

    You get cut off of course!

  • zuljin #7 5 years ago

    I love the the comic PennyArcade did on this guy.

    http://ww w.penny-arcade.com/comic/2007/0...

  • JediMasterMalik #8 5 years ago

    It would be interesting to see the development of TH if it wasn't blasted at E3.

    Would it still turn out to be good if it wasn't previewed and the developers told it was shit? Would they have known what to change? More importantly, will it still not be shit even with that feedback?

  • The-Bodybuilder #9 5 years ago

    >"You get cut off of course! "

    Has it ever happened though?

  • NthSimulachum #10 5 years ago

    @bodybuilder: A horses head in your bed.

  • krudster #11 5 years ago

    "Cut off" is probably a strong term, but I think it you pushed it then you almost certainly would find the invites drying up. There's a balance to be found - there's no point fawning over game creators, but nor is there much to be gained from being rude.

  • Segnit #12 5 years ago

    He is not a whiner. He was stung hard with the events that unfolded at the previous E3. He knows it damaged the image of his game previewing it ahead of time. I understand that and i can relate to his troubles... however... the game wasn't up to scratch and blaming games journos for being too critical and unfair on Too Human just doesn't make sense... and goes partly against what MR. Dyack himself his saying.

    I think that internally they were crushed and he's trying to make up lost ground.

    I am personally very glad that this happened to Silicon Knights because this seems to have motivated them to prove everyone wrong.

    And Krudster... your Driv3r review was fair and very well written. And i find that Eurogamer reviews in general are not under the influence of publishers or hype. So, I think that Denis was referring to the American press mostly.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 10:53

  • Carpathian #13 5 years ago

    So, he wants game makers to be scrutinised and be treated with a more critical eye........but is moaning that early stuff they show gets scrutinised and was treated with a more critical eye.

    [puzzled]

    Am I missing something here ?

    {shrugs}

  • krudster #14 5 years ago

    Yeah, there is a massive contradiction in what he's saying. On the one hand he wants journos to be hard on developers, yet doesn't think they should be allowed to see early code. To be frank, if more developers let the press see games at an earlier stage, we might be able to point out the things that stop the game from fulfilling its potential.

  • Sid-Nice #15 5 years ago

    Is it my keyboard? Why do I keep typing Denyas Dick?

  • Rev.StuartCampbell #16 5 years ago

    ""Cut off" is probably a strong term, but I think it you pushed it then you almost certainly would find the invites drying up."

    Invites to what, though? Preview events full of naked girls and dead goats? Heck, those can be fun but they in no way impact on a magazine or website's ability to do its job, so who gives a crap? Interviews? Publishers don't give magazines interview access as a favour, they do it because they've got something to promote. No matter how mean you were to Game X 2007, when Game X 2008 comes along they still want the publicity, so that 3/10 for GX2007 will be hastily forgotten. (Indeed, the same argument applies to almost any other kind of "invites" publishers might bestow on writers.)

    The world of games writing would be an infinitely better place if journos had no contact whatsoever with game publishers other than being sent review copies. (And even that isn't necessary for any journalist worth their salt. I've reviewed games weeks before EG or any other website has, and nobody sends me squat.) Every time someone goes off on an obscenely lavish beano in California that's three days they're not in the office getting some proper work done, and they're having their integrity compromised at the same time, because even if you're the most honest person in the world it's human nature to think kindly towards people who've just spent thousands of pounds entertaining you. It's perfectly possible to produce a highly successful gaming publication with no assistance whatsoever from game publishers - especially on the internet where there's relatively very little direct paid advertising for publishers to leverage sites with - and I wish someone would have the balls to do it again.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 11:15

  • The-Bodybuilder #17 5 years ago

    >"I am personally very glad that this happened to Silicon Knights because this seems to have motivated them to prove everyone wrong."

    I see what he's saying too.
    I mean, haze has a bigger thread than the too human thread I made for crying out loud. And no one has heard from it for a good while.
    It seems the too human damage is unrepairable now. A mass effect or halo comment can go into 2 to 3 pages. a too human one may get 20 comments, if it's lucky.

    Fact is the journos complete and utter nastiness to the EARLY ALPHA demo really did destroy the game. People were swift to judge the game based on an EARLY ALPHA DEMO (i need to stress that).
    Because of that, the game is doomed, sales-wise. No matter what score is gets, the fact that the game is not on everyone's list means it's never gonna sell what it should have.

    We might get another shenmue situation here. Huge budget, huge game, great reviews, but lack of support means no 3rd sequel to finish off the story.

  • JediMasterMalik #18 5 years ago

    @krduster - IMO that should be a part of game design. At the very least simply to ensure the game get's reviewed well, get some well known review sites to take a look at the game mechanics and what not ad use then for positive feedback. It'd certainly help prevent getting too many hit games out the door.

  • TwistidChimp #19 5 years ago

    Krudster said - "Yeah, there is a massive contradiction in what he's saying. On the one hand he wants journos to be hard on developers, yet doesn't think they should be allowed to see early code. To be frank, if more developers let the press see games at an earlier stage, we might be able to point out the things that stop the game from fulfilling its potential."

    Exactly what I was thinking, he's just smarting cause they went to E3 with a really bad demo, and got an honest response, that wasn't the journo's fault, it was his. If it wasn't good enough, he shouldn't have released it to the press. What were they supposed to say. Well, it was a hideous bug ridden mess that played really badly, but Dennis says it will be teh awsome when it launches so we'll lie and say it was great ?

  • IAmBatman #20 5 years ago

    johnsto: I work in games, I know how they're made. The idea of E3 demos is that you polish up a vertical slice for resentation anyway (and whether such demos are a good or bad thing is a different argument).

    I was really just pointing out that Dennis's argument is flawed. And if you're trying to make a case, it's a good idea not to start out with a point that is clearly wrong.

  • Angrydarren #21 5 years ago

    If the guy could ship a game on time I'd listen. If the released cutscenes within Too Human were not so utterly shite I'd listen. If he'd not been making this game since 1999 and been on every format known to man I'd listen. However this sounds like A.N.Other whiny developer who wants to blame marketing / publishers / anyone else because someone dared to suggest that a litle bit of explanation may not be a bad thing for gamers.

    Movies are different, but movies exist on a largely level playing field. Movies live and die by narrative, scripts and characters - which is why The Godfather can still kick the ass of many modern movies. Movies are understandable and so people can make personal assessments without the need to have massive in depth knowledge of 83 other titles. Also, movies have a habit of being delivered largely on time!

    PR for movies does start a long way out. My Dyack is being naive. He's got a bizarre, barely understood game on his hands but doesn't feel the need to tell anyone why it's important or attractive.

  • nickthegun #22 5 years ago

    I must have missed the memo. Can someone provide a link or sum in less than 50 words this apparent journalistic savagery?

  • IAmBatman #23 5 years ago

    Haribo Starmix please.

  • Freek #24 5 years ago

    Nonsense, they show in work in progress stuff in movie land aswell, infact they do it all the time.

    Previews, trailers, rough cutts, animatics, production art, "leaked" scripts, press invites to sets while the movie is in progress.
    Scene previews at fan events, like Comicon.
    Movies sometimes even go into massive reshoots to try and fix them after a bad early reactions.
    Sites like Ain't It Cool News probably coulden't exist otherwise, it's almost all previews and news from stuff that's still being filmed.

    Dyack is angry at the wrong people, he was forced to show a game that was not ready for the press by Microsoft, that sucks, but that's not the fault of the press or the industrie in general.
    We need to see things before they are finished to get the word out, so gamers know what to expect. Plus it's just fun to read about upcomming things.
    Just make sure you don't show things at a stage so ridiculously early it makes it look like garbage.

  • Eighthours #25 5 years ago

    So let me get this straight. He whines about the treatment that Too Human got from journos, then says that journos should be more critical.

    Consistency FTW.

  • TwistidChimp #26 5 years ago

    Just for the record, am I the only one getting GIGANTO text on this page ?

  • Mr_Whacker #27 5 years ago

    No contradiction. Journos should be more critical of FINISHED games (poor examples of which get let off with 8s all the time) and less critical of something that won't be close to complete for months. The man talks a lot of sense.

    How many times have we heard that the gameplay magic doesn't come together until right at the end of development? So what good is that 12 month preview?

    All a preview is ever giving you is whether it currently has bugs (irrelevent, almosty certainly be fixed) and the story (irrelevant to a great deal of consumers and doesn't really damage the game anyway eg Gears of War). I have no idea why journos think I might want to read that fluff. I don't.

    'To be frank, if more developers let the press see games at an earlier stage, we might be able to point out the things that stop the game from fulfilling its potential. '

    Blimey. So if they change it exactly as per your feedback it will get a higher score?
    So long integrity... what happened to evaluating the product you have before you? If you feel that way you should be a designer, not a journo.

    Edit - a bit more rant
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 13:18

  • erp #28 5 years ago

    it's not often that this happens, but rev, i think you're absolutely spot on. and i wish someone would have the balls to try again too.

  • gnarl #29 5 years ago

    Game God Denis Dyack is still bitter then? I think his point (made after the hatred and anger destroyed his soul) is that other game developers get the fawning treatment whereas he got the cold, harsh and uncaring previews. He wants all the other game devs to undergo the same treatment he did. At least that's the only sense I could extract from his comments.

    As far as not having to be nice to publishers, and just buy and review copies from down the shops? I think I'd miss previews and interviews. They allow me hope for good games for the future and, when the they turn out to be terrible, I can at least see what they were trying for. And only the foolish trust anything on quality before the game is finished. Which may be the majority, unfortunately. If an aggressively attacking site could exist and be popular, why isn't there one?

    Also, as far as the 'game marketing should be more like film marketing' does anyone else think he sounds like someone who fears the new and just wants to fall back on known methods, rather than finding the best way of doing it for the medium?

    @Mr_Whacker: The Game God does say he wants journalists to be more intimidating in previews and interviews. Explicitly.

    Edit: Response and production -> marketing.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 13:39

  • MrAtheist #30 5 years ago

    I agree with the Rev.

    Eurogamer, its time to grow a set of balls. :)

    New review policy - Writers who do previews and get invited on the publisher 'events' arent allowed to review the final game. Also, if you are set on the out of 10 scale, start dishing out scores of 0,1 or 2 to shit that deserves it.

  • Mr_Whacker #31 5 years ago

    gnarl - fair play he does say that. He should have said what I said!

  • lost_soul #32 5 years ago

    Is this the same Dyack that recently let ign see the incomplete Too Human? (and I believe that ign still weren't all that impressed).

    His rant on the recent EGM podcast was very interesting.

  • Freek #33 5 years ago

    And another thing, could the gaming industry please stop trying to be like the movies?
    Does everybody in the industry have a MASSIVE inferiority complex, completely unable to do their own thing and come up with their style?

    "When I grow up, I want to be just like Hollywood".

    Meanwhile Hollywood is slowly dying, trying to save profits by randomly suing everybody with an internet connection. Please do not take them as an example.

  • kangarootoo #34 5 years ago

    Now I don't like stuff I am involved with getting stomped on any more than anyone else. But here is a truth that many will already know.

    If you preview a game well into its development and it doesn't seem very good (looks poor, no fun, whatever) then that is likely indicitive of the direction in which the end result is heading.

    Games get made to tight deadlines, with little time to go back and fix the bad stuff (which sucks, but its currently true). So if a preview shows up glaring problems in a game that is not a million miles from completion, chances are some of those issues will turn up in the finished product.

    And to be honest, even the most basic prototype can be fun to play. If it isn't, warning bells should be ringing that all your cash has been spent on a light show rather than a game.

    Now everyso often someone gets to go back and fix (or even rip out and redo) things that aren't going so well. But its rare you can really do that properly (Valve have the budget to do it, the majority of independants don't). First party devs fare better in this regard, but they still have deadlines to meet.

    So, I guess the dev/publisher has a choice as to whether to show a product that isn't finished, but if they choose to do so as part of their PR campaign they have to just take it on the chin and deal with it if people say "that sucks".

  • Royal Fool #35 5 years ago

    With games now having huge budgets (just like Hollywood movies), upwards of hundreds of millions of dollars, I don't think game publishers and developers can actually risk not showing a title at all through the entirity of the development process. It is much better to show snippets of it to the public and the media, getting feedback and criticism.

  • gnarl #36 5 years ago

    @Mr_Whacker: He does say similar to it in the main interview:

    'I question the relative value of previewing a game.'

    But then goes on to say (implicitly, not explicitly) that the interviewer should be more intimidating. Basically, he's all over the place because he just seems to be ranting. Doesn't mean he doesn't make interesting points, but they're not very clear.

  • Hendo #37 5 years ago

    I would've thought Mr Dyack would've learned to control his mouth after he made such a tit of himself on the EGM Live charade.
    The guy's a numpty.

  • chupachups #38 5 years ago

    "You see clips from uncompleted movies very often."

    Not uncompleted scenes though, the preview clips are always totally finished.

    You never see an official preview where the special effects and/or the music isn't done yet.

    Leaked footage is another matter, but by its very nature film companies have no control over stolen footage.


    "Previews, trailers, rough cutts, animatics, production art, "leaked" scripts, press invites to sets while the movie is in progress. Scene previews at fan events, like Comicon. "

    Those are only going to reach a minute, very informed audience. You never see unpolished clips on television or other mass media because most filmgoers won't be as understanding about why a scene without post-production looks low quality.
    Edited by 2 at 30/04/07 @ 18:36

  • nervous_testpilot #39 5 years ago

    There is nothing inherently wrong with previews, or indeed with contact between a developer and the media during development: it all depends on how these things are handled.

    It's an incontrovertible fact that there will always be a high demand for preview material, and so the games media will always seek it out: that can't be changed.

    With that in mind, I recommend the following approach to previews - take an early build and go to visit some journalists at their office; show them the game and ask them what they think (SHOCK: they play a lot more games than you, so they might just have some valid opinions); go to the pub with them, get drunk and don't talk about your game any more; go home and change your crappy game so that the journalists won't hate it as much.

    That's it - no arsing around flying people to Bostwana or snorting coke from a hooker's solar plexus. If anything vaguely complex is going on, it's that you're trading access to your game for a sneak peak at how journalists are going to react to it: that benefits everyone. It means you can make your game better, people get to read previews, and journalists get to keep their jobs.

    Also, kangaroo: "So, I guess the dev/publisher has a choice as to whether to show a product that isn't finished, but if they choose to do so as part of their PR campaign they have to just take it on the chin and deal with it if people say "that sucks"."

    Damn straight. If you get a bad preview, then just suck it up.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 18:36

  • Freek #40 5 years ago

    Rough cutts include scenes where the special effects are not finished, these reach the press.
    For the same exact reason games in progress are shown to the press, to generate publicity and interest as it's reported to the public.
    The media reports on it and even shows pictures, Transformers the movie being a prime example with early looks getting the fans pretty upset at how crap the designs were. And animatics (ie moving 3D storyboards) on some of the action scenes in a special preview at Comicon.

    The Simpsons movie aswell, first we ever saw were storyboards cutt toghether with Homers voice added in.
    It was the first official footage, even added it as a promo to DVDs.

    Fans of both want that, they want to see early stuff because they're excited about upcomming projects.

    If your stuff is still to early to show, then donīt it, but donīt claim it shouldenīt be done at all or point fingers at the press.

    The difference being ofcourse in videogames itīs harder to see wether something simply needs some optimisation or if the game is acutally sub standard.
    Edited by 1 at 30/04/07 @ 22:46

  • citizenHUNTER #41 5 years ago

    Haven't bothered reading any comment thus far but I agree with guy on principle. I think though however that games get criticised so much because most games are still seriously disappointing. Cheesy storylines, terrible voice acting and stereotypes by the bucket load or endless sequels with minor improvements. Frankly comparing games to films is faux pas because gaming really does still need to mature before it could ever truly rival movies (as far as epic story based games go). They could also do more to be more interactive as well really, sometimes the limits in a lot of games are pathetic, we should be able to do whatever we want and see realistic results. Next gen might be getting there I suppose...

  • Markusdragon #42 5 years ago

    I'm not a big fan of film advertising. If you ask me, it needs more dead goats.

  • jlaakso #43 5 years ago

    Too bad that Dyack got burnt with Too Human, but the guy is really just sounding so bitter as to not be taken seriously. You need to get the hype machine going to build interest.

    Although I do agree that there's too heavy emphasis on pre-release press. The game is on the shelves for a couple of weeks and then it's gone... I like Edge's Time Extend series; something like that should be a staple of the industry. The media and the industry is too obsessed with the next big thing and what's out this week.

  • kangarootoo #44 5 years ago

    @jlaakso

    "The media and the industry is too obsessed with the next big thing and what's out this week."

    In that regard the media just reflect the needs of their public. People generally don't want to hear about the same game over and over. Almost all media outlets reflect what the public wants, otherwise they wouldn't have any customers.

    I know we like to blame them for stuff, but if we didn't buy it they wouldn't print it.