| 20 posts found | |
|---|---|
|
Develop Magazine has released their list of the top “most bankable” development studios. Specifically, the website states that: ‘Develop 100 ranks the world's most bankable games development studios based on a variety of key criteria including sales data, critical success and industry standing.” In order to qualify for the list, companies had to have released “key titles” in 2008. The magazine’s editors took into account such factors as: review scores (as per Metacritic and Gamequary), general industry standing, studio reputation, publisher relations and more. Focusing strictly on the MMO studios, Blizzard Entertainment took the number one spot overall. The next closest MMO company, Nexon, followed Bliazzard at 19th overall. The remaining MMORPG developers followed as such: 44 - Square Enix, 55 - EA Mythic, 58 - Codemasters, 62 - NCsoft, 70 - CCP, 77 - EA Bioware, and 83 – Funcom. Blizzard taking the #1 spot as the most bankable game development studio shouldn’t take anyone by surprise, but how did you feel about the rest of the ranking order? Do you agree? Disagree? Let us know in the forums! Check out the entire list at develop100.com Cheers, |
|
|
Does this count online sales like Steam? Otherwise it's pretty worthless like the NPD numbers. |
|
|
I was thinking along those lines too, it seems like the list is based on guessing and preference on the list makers, not on actual success of a studio. |
|
|
Lets take a look at the TOP ten. Blizzard Entertainment * USA
* Japan
* United Kingdom 4 EA Canada * Canada
* Japan
* Canada 7 Treyarch * USA
* USA
* USA 10 Bethesda Softworks * USA These COMPANIES are there for a reason because they KNOW what works and what dont. Take the NUMBER two spot for example. NINTENDO is a multinational corporation located in Kyoto, Japan founded on September 23, 1889 by Fusajiro Yamauchi to produce handmade hanafuda cards. AMAZING they been a gaming company for over 100 years. THEY have what it takes to be on this list because they STICK to the basic ingredients from the start. JUST like the rest of the top ten.
|
|
|
Roleplaying
 Novice Member
Joined: 4/30/09
Cleanliness becomes more important when godliness is unlikely. |
Originally posted by Isturi
Makes sense! |
|
Maybe I'm just too ignorant about this stuff but... Bankable to me meas successful, worth investing in, etc... Yet they break out groups within other organizations, review previously independents that are now part of other studios, etc... It's a mish-mash of rationals for why they chose who they chose in the order they placed them. The top 10 have a lot of detail. the next 10 have less and only up to the top 50 have reasons, etc... issuu.com/develop/docs/develop100_2009 That's the full thing. It starts on page 10 and goes to page 88 but reading the intro then going to the pages. EA <division> holds x number of the spots. Nintendo <division> holds y number of spots, etc... and the reasons for positioning them at those points, yet not listing other studios... /boggle No standardized metrics used to evaluate -- I can see "opinion" coming in on close issues but this thing... The numbers don't jibe with the positions nor who is who matching up. As I said, maybe I'm missing something but this list looks to be little more than "blog" opion in a "pretty format" with an eye catching title to it. |
|
Originally posted by Eleazaros
Agree indeed. w/o standarized criteria and data collection these rankings are sorta meaningless. Also, they leave out SEVERAL indy studios that are held private and as such they release no numbers yet they hold really, really good titles and intellectual properties. |
|
|
I don't think this list is even anywhere near accurate. Rockstar north rated above EA Canada? Also, level 5 = 23 and Square - Enix = 44? |
|
|
Well until Knights of the Old Republic actually goes live EA-Bioware is NOT a MMO company. When the game goes live they can claim they are one, until then they are not. |
|
Originally posted by Ozmodan
Yes, lets all get worked up over that... |
|
|
Well I can say Bethesda deserves their spot TES is a great series and fallout 3 is also good. Some of the other are just meh... Can I have a cookie please? PLEASESESESE. OMG I WANT A COOKIE NOW!!!YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT IM CAPABLE OF. I NEEDZ COOKIES NOW OR BAD THINGS WILL HAPPEN! now what was I saying? |
|
|
#1 - Blizzard Well deserved position. Still waiting for the real UO successor... |
|
|
it wouuld be nice if there was a list of games that they developed like for nintendo they would have super marios stuff like that so if u look through them ur not just seeing names of companies u may neverheard of u might see the name off a game u love to bits but u didn't know that company made it
sorry for bad speelling an d no punctuation i just can't get the hang offf it and would rather leave it out then haveing someone read it see i put it in the wrong place and then say something like u screwed up |
|
|
surprised that Funcom made the list but good for them |
|
|
Is Sony Online Entertainment a studio? If so, funny I dont see them.. |
|
|
Funcom made the list? But Turbine didn't? Come on now. |
|
Originally posted by si1foo
Check my earlier post and you'll find a link to the actual article vs just studio list. Inside the article they list the "key release" as "the reason" for them being on the list. That's what caused me to go "hu?" -- Blizzard is on there for WoW being released into Russia and South America last year and that was their reason for being on the list. Nintendo EAD -- Wiifit was their "key" release last year, etc... Each studio is listed with its supposed key release. It's not a list of MMO's either. The only MMO titile I really saw was WoW. All the rest seemed to be stand-alone games for xbox, etc... vs MMO's. |
|
|
I would like to know what their data was; this list seems partly arbitrary in the ordering. My particular issue is with their ranking of NCsoft. The first problem is that the key release listed for 2008 is... Lineage II. The game is 5 years old, how can it be the key release for 2008? Don't get me wrong, Lineage is a great series, and Lineage II does earn a fair share of NC's profits... but the raters could have at least picked a game from the year in question (Exteel or GW: Eye of the North) or any other of the NC games that released more recently. Another concern is why it ranked so low compared to other exclusively MMO studios. Sure NCsoft may have had a bit of a rough spot in later half of 2008 while it was restructuring, but with Aion being released (and posting record breaking sales in Korea) one would think that would put it higher on the list. |
|
Originally posted by Ozmodan
The list isn't about MMO companies. Its about successful game studios(most studios are part of a bigger organization, usually a publisher like Activision or EA). Anything Bioware has touched has turned to gold. Same thing with Rockstar, Bethesda, Blizzard, etc. You can't name one flop from a critically reviewed or financial standpoint. |
|
Originally posted by fansede
Good question, but I believe they are categorized as publishers not a game studio. EQ was developed by the now defunct Verant, which was owned by SOE(like how EA owns Mythic and Bioware along with tons of others). Not sure how you would classify SOE, since I believe they actually did make SWG and EQ2. I don't see any mention of other developers on the website. Still SOE only created two games if that is the case. EQ's credit would go to Verant, because they were their own studio even if owned by SOE. |
|
