Last week, we celebrated the great British presence in the Develop 100, an annual publication that ranks the world's game development studios. Although clearly pleased that so many UK studios were included (and with one in the top slot), we weren't convinced that the criteria for selection were robust.
And so, we got in touch with Michael French, Editor-in-Chief of Develop, MCV and Casualgaming.biz, who took a few moments out of his busy editorial balancing act to answer a few probing questions. Keep reading for Michael's views on why the Develop100 is the definitive list and why the UK's entries are even more indicative of a bullish British market.
First, does the Develop100 intend to be a definitive top 100 list or is this a light touch list?
We definitely believe our list is accurate and authoritative. I'm sure (and know) that there are studios which feel left out or are claiming the list has 'lost relevance', but similarly there are many others that think this list better reflects the changing nature of the development industry, and the games industry as a whole given the rise of new business models, delivery mechanisms and wider audiences. Based on the way we formulated the list this is as good a list like this as you will get.
How did you measure "general industry standing, studio reputation, publisher relations and all around brilliance"?
Based primarily on calendar year 2008, we formed a long list of studios around the world based on their actual output. We then sorted that list based the end-of-year and monthly sales charts published by the three respected games industry data agencies – GfK-ChartTrack, NPD and Famitsu. Then we compared the list of a report of Metacritic scores given to us by Gamequarry.com, which sorted developer standing not on sales but also their critical success last year.
At the same time we had invited the industry, back when we announced the newer criteria in March, to submit ideas and comments on their and other studios, which we took into account. We also augmented and added to those pitches with our own research and questions, including: how many publishing deals has this studio secured? What is its ability to raise funding like? How well can it generate new IP? What new or classic business models has this studio pioneered or taken advantage of? What is its reputation amongst fans like? What is its reputation amongst the industry like? How successful has its DLC been? Did its major releases lived up to their hype/promise? If it's publisher-owned what kind of revenues has it generated for its owner? How well has it developed its business, either via expansion or acquisition? Has it been over-reliant on making games based on its own old IP or properties owned by another publisher? Has it had any cultural impact? In what other biz dev ways has the studio succeeded (e.g. Has it successfully sold its tech to other studios with good results?)?
Sure, some of these are arguably subjective – but there are enough variables there to paint a decent picture of every studio in the book, which the team then debated and discussed at great length.
Third, where did you get the data for the iPhone/casual/social network content? Was it bespoke research or from another source?
This is a mix of sources – and admittedly, details and metrics on this area of the market are hard to find. But we used a mix of publicly released data and information given to us by people at those and other companies. Remember this is a list about studios and their content, not necessarily just their content. So the questions above were asked about them: this explains why someone like Playfish makes it in the list for the first time.
What do you think accounts for the strong British presence in this list?
In the 2009 edition of the Develop 100 there are 25 UK studios in the list, the same amount as there were when the book was purely based on UK sales as it has been in its previous four iterations. On the flipside, there are a much higher number of Japanese and North American (USA and Canada) studios in the book; there always are.
You could even argue that some of those UK companies not in this year's list but present in other years – specifically the work for hire ones – would make the UK contingent even greater had they had a slightly better year in terms of sales and/or reviews, provided fuller data, or had better standing.
But in all, I think the answer to the question is simple: the UK remains a vibrant place for developing games. Studios here make some of the most profitable global franchises (Rockstar North and GTAIV, Traveller's Tales and Lego Star Wars/Batman, etc), can generate great new IP (Media Molecule and LittleBigPlanet, Black Rock and Pure), have innovated amongst stiff competition (Jagex and Runescape), continually wow with British-flavoured but world-renowned series (Sports Interactive and Football Manager, London Studio and SingStar, Criterion and Burnout), fulfil on their promise/hype (Lionhead and Fable II), and/or truly surprise by defining and maintaining a new category in games (Relentless and Buzz!, Playfish and its Facebook games).
Of course the USA is great too – this country created World of Warcraft, Fallout, Dead Space, Modern Warfare, Gears of War, etc.
Finally, how much is the release of the Top 100 tied in with the marketing strategy for the Develop conference?
The two aren't related – the only connection is the Develop brand. The 100 has been published for five years now, and pre-dates the conference itself. We are a large part of the Develop Conference in terms of branding, support and ethos - and our executive editor also runs the advisory board for the event – which has helped make it the success it is, but the organisation and marketing strategy is expertly handled by Tandem Events, with the PR from Bastion. The fact we published the list and our press release this week in the same time frame they confirmed the great new speakers at the event is pure coincidence.
