Rare: Taking control

Despite the recent release of a certain XBLA game, the last thing Rare wants to dwell on is the past. The group has moved on from its memorable Nintendo love-in and the limbo that followed. 

Rare is now completely focused. It is freed from the ghoulies, and has clear, direct goals. It is providing games and services for a device which Microsoft is staking virtually all its reputation on.

In part one of our interview with the devloper’s studio head, Mark Betteridge (pictured), we discussed how Rare is positioning its business for the future. In the second half of our interview below, we discuss what that future will be.

Is there still a hunger at Rare to make the big-budget blockbusters?

Yes absolutely, the main thing that we’re recognising here is that in order to be successful and effective in the future, not only do you need the diamond idea, but you also need to be very timely and cost-effective with how you implement that. 

Like with any hit-driven business, the timing is everything. Having the production facilities so that you can scale something, and move immediately, is very critical. 

Obviously Rare has a legacy of famous games but, now that the company is moving in new directions, is there a need to go back to them?

There isn’t a need to, I mean, it’d be nice to go back to these projects that have been successful in the past – but that doesn’t mean we will. We’d only go back to older franchises if we saw an opportunity to make the product in a different way that would do justice to that, not just for the sake of it.

Is Microsoft happy for you to build expensive, AAA games?

Microsoft Game Studios has quite a large number of different projects; some internal and some external, and it’s about getting the right overall portfolio for first-party. 

A first-party’s job should be to define the Xbox 360 platform, and that’s what we are looking to do here. It’s always a lot of work to do that – no great project ever comes easily – and sometimes that’s seen in the scale and scope of a project. You can imagine something like Halo 3 required an enormous amount of content work, and other times it’s more to do with the design and balance and approachability of a project and I think Natal is going to be key with that. 

So sometimes there’s a different emphasis of effort in a different area for a different audience, that’s the way I see it. I suppose at Microsoft it’s about, overall, having the right content from first-party studios to define what Natal is. 

We’re very confident we do have that, we will have that, and I think people are going to be impressed with what they see from ourselves and first-parties. It’s a great attribute of Microsoft that, not only do they have the creative decision to bring something like Natal into the marketplace when other companies aren’t doing so well at the moment, but they also have the financial backing to run with that.  

You know, a lot of people have great ideas but can’t bring them to market just because of the sheer cost of doing so. At the moment many companies deem it too expensive to be creative with new ideas. 

And that’s a critical advantage that we have being a Microsoft first-party studio. We have full backing for investing in Natal to prove everything it can be and, really, we do feel privileged to be able to experiment with it.

What's surprising with the Wii is that Nintendo published Wii Sports, a new Zelda game and Wario Ware shortly after the console’s launch, yet few developers have been inspired by these games and followed the trend. How important is it that first-party studios lead the way on Natal?

It’s very important. The Wii surprised a lot of people, probably even Nintendo, with the low level of appetite and interest it attracted with its content. 

A lot of the third-parties were a bit slow to react to the Wii, because they weren’t expecting the kind of levels of success you see with Wii Sports or Wii Fit. 

I think [with the Xbox 360], if you’re going into an area where you compete with Halo or Gears of War, you’re up against some very formidable competition. But if a studio is able to define its own game experience, you have a much better chance in being a leader in that area. 

So with Natal, a lot of developers will see it as another opportunity to move into a brand new market where you define your own rules. If you’re a studio starting now, you can go up against the Halos and Gears of Wars and the Call of Dutys, but that’s a tall order. 

To succeed on the 360 you need a quantum change in the rules that allows different offerings to succeed, and I think Natal is a massive opportunity for that. I think developers will realise that. 

I think it will surprise a lot of people how much content you can get on Natal that is appealing to not only the audience that we have but band new customers who will for the first time feel interested on playing on the Xbox. 

The Wii obviously has a dichotomised audience of core and casual, and they tend to not mix. Do you feel Natal can satisfy both audiences? 

We know a lot about  the kind of customers the Xbox has right now – the attach rate is very high, and we can see what sort of software they really like. 

I think there will be a brand new market of people who will come into the Xbox world who aren’t currently attracted to it. Now, how many of the current customers we can attract to Natal, and get a crossover with new audiences, is going to be very key for us. In terms of content I think you’ll get games that satisfy both audiences. 

There is a certain type of customer who is simply not interested in buying a new Xbox, no matter how many Forza or Halo games we add to it – they are just not interested in that kind of core experience. This is where the interesting opportunity is for us, because that market is obviously bigger than the one we have now. 

Natal is the biggest change in how you interact with software… ever, really, because we’ve moved to a clean sheet of paper on the user input – it’s a huge change creatively in how you build a game.

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as niggers, is in fact, Afrcan Americans/niggers, or as I've recently taken to calling them, Afrcan Americans plus niggers. Niggers is not an race unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning Afrcan Americans system made useful by the Afrcan American community.

Many slave owners run a modified version of the Afrcan Americans every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of Afrcan Americans which is widely used today is often called "niggers", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the Afrcan Americans system, developed by the Afrcan Americans Project.

There really are niggers, and these people are using them, but it is just a part of the system they use. Niggers are the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the Afrcan American community's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an Afrcan American community, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete Afrcan American community. Niggers are normally used in combination with the Afrcan Americans community: the whole system is basically Afrcan Americans with niggers added, or Afrcan Americans/niggers. All the so-called "niggers" are really distributions of Afrcan Americans/niggers.

Like they said in the article, timing is very important. Their games in the 90s were considered cutting edge and their style appealed to the Nintendo audience.

The games Rare creates now aren't any worse than their old games. The only reason they aren't successful is because they don't appeal to the 360 audience. Everything they've released on the original Xbox and Xbox 360 would have been more successful on Nintendo consoles.

Right now, I just look at Rare as a pet project of Microsoft. They still fill a gap of the 360 library (XBLA included) and must be proftiable. Perhaps their Natal projects will successful.

From what I've played I'm really not sure that's true. I don't think they would have much more success on Wii or DS than on 360. The games just don't seem to have the charm and quality of previous Rare games. If they were constantly releasing cutting edge material, what's made them release average products now? I don't doubt they're profitable, but why have they been relegated to being a pet project of Microsoft's?

If you look at their previous games you can see quite a range of games and a varied portfolio of sucessful games (both critically and sales-wise). After joining Microsoft they haven't produced anything with the critical and commercial success experienced before. Microsoft's takeover of Rare should be held up to the rest of the industry as how not to do a corporate buy-out.

They need to do something because the current system isin't making blockbusters.

To be blunt, Rare is competing with high quality developers on the 360. Their games are easily over shadowed by high quality games being released all the time. The same games they've released on the 360 would get a lot more attention on the Wii because they appeal to a younger audience and the Wii has a very weak library aside from 1st party titles. Their games weren't good on the N64 either, there just wasn't much to choose from on the N64.

In a nutsehll, Rare has huge competition on the 360 and they would have little competition on the Wii.

Edit: You should also bear in mind that expectations were much lower in previous generations and are still pretty low on the Wii. Its not that their games have gotten worse, they just aren't up to par with high quality Xbox 360 and PS3 games of today.

I'm sorry but the games on the N64 were compared to all the greats of that gen on all consoles, (including the great games on the PS1) to the point where many want remakes or remakes are being made via PC mods. They were both critical and commercial successes. Critics review every game on every console and if they reviewed Rare games highly back then I'm inclined to believe they were among the best of that gen.

Even on the Wii the quality of all the first-party titles would so far outshadow the quality of the Rare games currently released I don't see how sales would be significantly higher. Most 3rd-party's complain about the competitions from Nintendo. Expectations might have been lower in previous gens, but that's only relative to what we have now. Most devs like Rare would be improving and should be learning to cope with the changing market especially with the resources Microsoft has at their disposal.

Competition is really a poor excuse as to why they've had such a fall from grace.

Poor RARE, It makes me sad to watch how low they have fallen in the hands of MS.

Man, i even respect more those guys from Japan that bring Little King´s Story to live, i think they deserved to live instead of this RARE-kept-alive-by-Windows.

@Scoobes

What happened to Rare during the N64-GameCube transition?....I ask this because if I remember correctly, it was around that time when they started their fall from grace.

Rare now and Rareware from back then are 2 different company
I wouldnt want the Rare now to destroy jet force gemini like they did perfect dark with zero