Comment Re:Is id really a game company? (Score 1) 238
Yes.
The bulk of id's revenue does come from the licensing of their engines, but to regard them as a technology company rather than a game company would be a crime. The notion that id's games are nothing more than "proofs of concept" is a real stretch. if id were a tech company, it would probably have one employee - carmack. Maybe he'd contract a single artist to create a few textures, models, and skins to show off the engine's capabilities, but essentially, carmack would be id: he'd write an engine, demonstrate it, sell it, buy several high-performance sports cars with the proceeds, then start writing another engine. Granted, in a sense, carmack is id - without his engines, it wouldn't be around. But the fact that id has a reasonably-sized staff that boasts some of the most talented (and, likely, highly-paid) individuals in the gaming industry speaks volumes about id's goals.
FPS (first-person shooters) are so popular for a very good reason - deathmatch. There seems to be a misconception that multiplayer combat (deathmatch) cannot be a game on its own. In truth, deathmatch is one of the most beautiful, elegant game concepts around. Deathmatch is a riot, and not just for the 14 year-old male peer-murdering death metal-loving demographic (I'm 23 - most of the many people I've played with are in my age range). Deathmatch also accounts for 99% of the time spent playing an FPS - by its nature it has near-infinite replayability. id has recognized this (evidenced by the fact that quake 3 will be geared entirely toward deathmatch/multiplayer combat). A great single-player scenario is all well and good, but multiplayer is where it's at. Take Half-life. The single-player was a lot of fun (though it wasn't the excellent, hyper-immersive, this-is-a-quantum-leap-for-FPS's game every reviewer seemed to think it was). Deathmatch, however, was poor. I've touched it once, maybe twice, since finishing the single-player game.
id does deathmatch better than anyone else. Producing a proof of concept wouldn't require near the number of hours id throws at its games for purposes of play-balancing, and many-more-than-necessary quantities of levels, multiplayer maps, models, and skins. There's no question that id's technology is a valuable commodity, but these folks are most definitely in the business of creating the most entertaining experience possible for a gamer's buck.
The simplicity of deathmatch/multiplayer allows for a universe made truly complex through human interaction (sure, combat is a fairly simple interaction to build a framework for, but it's also one of the most intense ways humans deal with one another and thus lends itself to gaming) rather than attempting to simulate complexity through a purportedly immersive world of buttons to press, levers to pull, and pre-scripted encounters. id didn't just create deathmatch, it almost single-handedly popularized graphical multiplayer gaming...the "future of gaming," especially as broadband becomes more widespread. id has revolutionized the way games are played - if that doesn't make it worthy of the title of "game company," I don't know what does.
The bulk of id's revenue does come from the licensing of their engines, but to regard them as a technology company rather than a game company would be a crime. The notion that id's games are nothing more than "proofs of concept" is a real stretch. if id were a tech company, it would probably have one employee - carmack. Maybe he'd contract a single artist to create a few textures, models, and skins to show off the engine's capabilities, but essentially, carmack would be id: he'd write an engine, demonstrate it, sell it, buy several high-performance sports cars with the proceeds, then start writing another engine. Granted, in a sense, carmack is id - without his engines, it wouldn't be around. But the fact that id has a reasonably-sized staff that boasts some of the most talented (and, likely, highly-paid) individuals in the gaming industry speaks volumes about id's goals.
FPS (first-person shooters) are so popular for a very good reason - deathmatch. There seems to be a misconception that multiplayer combat (deathmatch) cannot be a game on its own. In truth, deathmatch is one of the most beautiful, elegant game concepts around. Deathmatch is a riot, and not just for the 14 year-old male peer-murdering death metal-loving demographic (I'm 23 - most of the many people I've played with are in my age range). Deathmatch also accounts for 99% of the time spent playing an FPS - by its nature it has near-infinite replayability. id has recognized this (evidenced by the fact that quake 3 will be geared entirely toward deathmatch/multiplayer combat). A great single-player scenario is all well and good, but multiplayer is where it's at. Take Half-life. The single-player was a lot of fun (though it wasn't the excellent, hyper-immersive, this-is-a-quantum-leap-for-FPS's game every reviewer seemed to think it was). Deathmatch, however, was poor. I've touched it once, maybe twice, since finishing the single-player game.
id does deathmatch better than anyone else. Producing a proof of concept wouldn't require near the number of hours id throws at its games for purposes of play-balancing, and many-more-than-necessary quantities of levels, multiplayer maps, models, and skins. There's no question that id's technology is a valuable commodity, but these folks are most definitely in the business of creating the most entertaining experience possible for a gamer's buck.
The simplicity of deathmatch/multiplayer allows for a universe made truly complex through human interaction (sure, combat is a fairly simple interaction to build a framework for, but it's also one of the most intense ways humans deal with one another and thus lends itself to gaming) rather than attempting to simulate complexity through a purportedly immersive world of buttons to press, levers to pull, and pre-scripted encounters. id didn't just create deathmatch, it almost single-handedly popularized graphical multiplayer gaming...the "future of gaming," especially as broadband becomes more widespread. id has revolutionized the way games are played - if that doesn't make it worthy of the title of "game company," I don't know what does.
