The 40 Most Powerful People In Video Games

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I am almost scared to post this list of the 40 most powerful people in video games because Apple's CEO sits in the #1 position. :eek:

The world of video games is full of mighty people—people whose mere whims control what video games we play, what we play games on, how we buy them or even what games are like. We've often wondered who the most powerful person is in video games. And we've wondered who the second is, the third and the 38th. Now, we bring you the results. Our results of the top 40.
Click to expand...
 
Appearantly, the majority of people in the world play games on iPhones.....even scarier eh?
 
Forty people, huh. I wonder how they ordered that long list.
 
#36. Jane McGonigal, Optimistic Game Designer

Win.. I want to be the optimistic HardForum poster.
 
Uggh... Apple's CEO, really? Because the last I heard, he doesn't do anything with games. He makes a platform that if he says "you can't do this!", people would move to another mobile platform or to Facebook games.

Even Microsoft's CEO has more power when it comes to games. It's obvious, because when he says "you can't do this!", people come out of the woodwork to shake their fists and fight back.
 
Uh I'm sorry but a list like this that doesn't contain John Carmack earns an immediate dismissal.
 
Although putting Tim Cook at the top of the list is a little controversial ... the rest of the top 10 doesn't go for much risk ... they pick all three of the console leaders ... and they pick most of the big game distributor heads ... without knowing what proportion of games are purchased through Walmart it is hard to tell how hockey that choice is ... if Apple were to turn AppleTV into an actual console then their spot at the top would be more justified ... personally I think Kickstarter is the big wildcard in the gaming equation ... if the high profile projects do well then we might see the first truly viable alternative to the distributor system we have now
 
kbrickley said:
Although putting Tim Cook at the top of the list is a little controversial ... the rest of the top 10 doesn't go for much risk ... they pick all three of the console leaders ... and they pick most of the big game distributor heads ... without knowing what proportion of games are purchased through Walmart it is hard to tell how hockey that choice is ... if Apple were to turn AppleTV into an actual console then their spot at the top would be more justified ... personally I think Kickstarter is the big wildcard in the gaming equation ... if the high profile projects do well then we might see the first truly viable alternative to the distributor system we have now
Click to expand...

So you think they should turn Apple TV into this generations Pippin? What, you want to see them fail again? lol.

Honestly, Apple's release schedule for new phones and tablets would make any plug in console based on the same technology to be a hard sell. Why would you buy a console that will be replaced after a year when you can buy one that will be good for much much more?
 
ballistic90 said:
So you think they should turn Apple TV into this generations Pippin? What, you want to see them fail again? lol.

Honestly, Apple's release schedule for new phones and tablets would make any plug in console based on the same technology to be a hard sell. Why would you buy a console that will be replaced after a year when you can buy one that will be good for much much more?
Click to expand...

I wasn't recommending they take that action ... I was just saying it might make that spot more justifiable ;) ... right now the gaming industry money is primarily in consoles ... this makes the console heads reasonable choices ... the gaming industry revolves around the big distributors ... this makes the distributor heads (Valve, EA, Ubisoft, Activision, etc) viable choices ... Apple is technically a distributor right now as well as a mobile device manufacturer and there is money in mobile gaming (which they get a lot of) but it is unclear of the landscape of mobile gaming is totally in Apples control ... if they had a complete holistic infrastructure that included distribution (iTunes), central controller/console (AppleTV? or some new device) and smart controllers and mobile gaming platforms (laptops, ipods, iphones, ipads, etc) then they would have a lot of power ... I don't think they are there yet (personally I would put Sony/Xbox in a tie at the top or EA/Steam) ... but that is just me :)
 
weebling1 said:
Appearantly, the majority of people in the world play games on iPhones.....even scarier eh?
Click to expand...
Unlikely, but I bet they consider three middle-school girls that play a total of 5 mins a week on their 48 combined micro-games on their iPhones the same as 32 hardcore PC gamers that play 48 combined full-games 58 hours a week as the same.

Of course this is non-sense, but that is the only way it makes sense that Apple would be at all considered relevant for games, since most gamers are on PC or one of the "big 3s" consoles.
 
It really depends on what you call gaming.

Personally, by my definition, nothing flash based, or downloaded to a mobile device as an app counts.

Calling Zynga "gaming" is a big joke.

By my definition I'd be willing to bet that executives with Microsoft and Sony, as well as executives at the big three game developers, as well as Valve for PC stuff (because of Steam) are all up there.
 
Even in a head pic Gabe Newell looks like he is a Weeble about to roll over.

WeebleBoy.jpg
 
Zarathustra[H];1039004532 said:
It really depends on what you call gaming.

Personally, by my definition, nothing flash based, or downloaded to a mobile device as an app counts.

Calling Zynga "gaming" is a big joke.

By my definition I'd be willing to bet that executives with Microsoft and Sony, as well as executives at the big three game developers, as well as Valve for PC stuff (because of Steam) are all up there.
Click to expand...

Well since their article is about "power" it has to be money that ultimately is your measure of power ... I don't think Apple should be in the number 1 spot (since most of their money is not directly tied to gaming and their actual gaming revenues are small compared to their other revenues) ... technology no longer drives gaming (which is why nVidia is the only tech company on the list) ... if the big console makers didn't have their own competing online delivery services I would put EA and Valve (Steam) as the most powerful (if they could ever persuade Sony or Microsoft to abandon their online component in favor of either of their competing solutions their power would rise immensely - this might be possible with Sony but is highly unlikely for Microsoft)

Ultimately I think the future power company will be the first one who can lock in the complete market (mobile, console, and PC) into a single holistic approach ... you perform complicated micromanagement tasks on a PC (or equivalent) for your game (this info is then saved to the cloud) ... you perform action oriented tasks on your PC or console (this also is saved to the cloud) ... and you use your mobile device for simple management, mini-games, and the like (all of these different platforms are linked through the cloud to provide a holistic integrated gaming experience) ... the monetary lock-in with an approach like that would be VERY powerful ... you could potentially sell a person 3 integrated games with DLC for each platform (a very lucrative proposition) ... I don't really see Apple going that way since they seem to prefer to enable gaming not really encourage it ... Microsoft might possibly be able to take that approach (maybe EA or Valve) ... Time will tell :cool:
 
the guy from walmart.... uh what? ffs why not include the pizza delivery guy down the road, he feeds the gamers, right?

the list is retarded on so many levels
 
halcyon said:
Uh I'm sorry but a list like this that doesn't contain John Carmack earns an immediate dismissal.
Click to expand...

If Rage had never existing, I would have backed your statement 100%.
But Rage sucked hardcore and was beyond awful.

Carmack has quite a hole he needs to dig himself out of.
If DOOM 4 is ever released, perhaps his opinion and influence will once again mean something.
 
I recognize a few. But mostly the list annoys me. It's mostly people in position of power to influence how games are made. I prefer the old days of independent developers.

Microprose
Sid Meir
John Carmack
Lord British

Valve and Blizzard for recent ones.
 
mysticdrew said:
No John Carmack or Richard Garriott FAIL
Click to expand...

Richard Garriott is a Gaming Hall of Famer but his modern power is fairly limited ... Carmack also has let time pass him by (although Id could still bring back their glory days) ... right now the Unreal Engine from Epic seems to be doing far better on the licensing front (and Epic was on their list) ... if Carmack would spend as much time pushing gaming as he does working on his airplane project he might be on the list ;)
 
Most of the mobile gaming apps might as well be compared to board games like Monopoly or Shoots and Ladders etc. or even solitaire. The fact that mobile gaming apps are turning the devs./ publishers heads and steering their focus away from the truly hardcore game platforms is disturbing. Splitting their focus is bad for our community. Instead these developers should start another division under their wing to focus on mobile apps and and stay on target with the crowd that got them where they are.
 
Oh this list is so incomplete without John Romero's golden opinions. :p
 
Red Falcon said:
Oh this list is so incomplete without John Romero's golden opinions. :p
Click to expand...

Well he did create the Facebook game Ravenwood Fair with Brenda Braithwaite (Wizardry) ... so maybe they need to reconsider them for the power list :D ... I mean all those cute woodland animals gotta be worth at least spot 40 :cool: ... (and for the humor impaired I am being facetious :p )
 
Dear [H] staff,
Please stop linking stories from Kotaku, or any of the Gawker affiliates.

Thanks,
 
lilbabycat said:
Dear [H] staff,
Please stop linking stories from Kotaku, or any of the Gawker affiliates.

Thanks,
Click to expand...

Seconded. A link to them is a link to the death of freedom and rationality. It may generate clicks for [H], but ultimately we all pay for it with our souls.
 
halcyon said:
Uh I'm sorry but a list like this that doesn't contain John Carmack earns an immediate dismissal.
Click to expand...

LOL...sucker.

The only two people IMO who have lost the 'important figure in gaming' cards are JC and Gabe...both are sellouts to profit and no longer make PC games...one went console and the other went lazy sit on steam for profit and not have to work on any games.
 
True... Valve hasn't released any game in ages... Sryy but LFD and portal are not games in my book...and i am sure without steam they woudn't be able to survive... Without steam we would have half life 10 by now :p
 
BBA said:
LOL...sucker.

The only two people IMO who have lost the 'important figure in gaming' cards are JC and Gabe...both are sellouts to profit and no longer make PC games...one went console and the other went lazy sit on steam for profit and not have to work on any games.
Click to expand...

Because Tim Cook develops games, amirite? Completely nullifies what John Carmack and Gabe Newell have done and continue to do, directly or indirectly.
 
Ducman69 said:
Unlikely, but I bet they consider three middle-school girls that play a total of 5 mins a week on their 48 combined micro-games on their iPhones the same as 32 hardcore PC gamers that play 48 combined full-games 58 hours a week as the same.

Of course this is non-sense, but that is the only way it makes sense that Apple would be at all considered relevant for games, since most gamers are on PC or one of the "big 3s" consoles.
Click to expand...

This is why the list is all about power and has nothing to do with making good games. Power is the means of compelling others to do your will. Making good games does not achieve this.

This leads to two (somewhat overlapping) markets:

1. Casual games (everything from farmville to angry birds, but also including various AAAAA franchises that end with a number and preferably are a spinoff of another franchise ending with a number). These games have to appeal to the interests on this list.

2. Everything else. Obviously, indie games had better live or die by their gameplay and appeal to gamers. On the other hand, some studios manage to publish through standard channels as long as they bring in enough profits.

The exception of major games that bring real gaming proves the rule. It might exist now, but expect that studio to eventually get bought out by EA/Activision/whoever and have various sweatshops endlessly clone the superficial nature of a real game that can then be marketed to death.

Appendix:
John Carmack: Developer of graphics engines. Generally speaking, graphics engines are dime a dozen. Graphics engines that actually work and can be used to make games are only slightly more valuable.
Sid Meier: If he is so powerful, why did he have to leave the company he founded, Microprose, and go create Firaxis?
 
They forgot the true #1: the consumers. Ultimately, we (collectively) decide if a game or even a company is going to be successful or not by voting with our wallets. Everyone on that list doesn't have shit for power if it wasn't for the consumers causing the cash registers to go "cha-ching".
 
Wumpus said:
This is why the list is all about power and has nothing to do with making good games. Power is the means of compelling others to do your will. Making good games does not achieve this.

This leads to two (somewhat overlapping) markets:

1. Casual games (everything from farmville to angry birds, but also including various AAAAA franchises that end with a number and preferably are a spinoff of another franchise ending with a number). These games have to appeal to the interests on this list.

2. Everything else. Obviously, indie games had better live or die by their gameplay and appeal to gamers. On the other hand, some studios manage to publish through standard channels as long as they bring in enough profits.

The exception of major games that bring real gaming proves the rule. It might exist now, but expect that studio to eventually get bought out by EA/Activision/whoever and have various sweatshops endlessly clone the superficial nature of a real game that can then be marketed to death.

Appendix:
John Carmack: Developer of graphics engines. Generally speaking, graphics engines are dime a dozen. Graphics engines that actually work and can be used to make games are only slightly more valuable.
Sid Meier: If he is so powerful, why did he have to leave the company he founded, Microprose, and go create Firaxis?
Click to expand...

It would be ideal if the game industry could settle into a model more similar to the movie industry where the big profit blockbusters help fund the lower revenue or smaller market niche products ... this would allow companies to produce their generic titles that appeal to a mass audience without sacrificing genres that seem to phase in and out of importance (turn based games, complex strategy games, etc) ... don't know if they will do this but this is how they should structure themselves
 
DejaWiz said:
They forgot the true #1: the consumers. Ultimately, we (collectively) decide if a game or even a company is going to be successful or not by voting with our wallets. Everyone on that list doesn't have shit for power if it wasn't for the consumers causing the cash registers to go "cha-ching".
Click to expand...

I think the one thing that prevents the consumers from being an actual power is they don't work together as a group ... for the most part they go with the flow of what the game companies give them ... they can certainly force the game companies into certain directions (the push for mobile is definitely consumer driven since that is where they buy lots of titles right now and the FPS genre is heavily consumer driven which is why the titles have become less sophisticated than they used to be to appeal to the widest range of consumers and consumer hardware) ... I think they could bump Walmart down in the rankings since I think their primary power is in the ratings (games change content to get ratings that will allow Walmart to sell them) and put the consumers at the bottom of the top 10
 
^ I think we have more power as a collective than you might think. Carmack just apologized publicly for Rage sucking. That to me means two things: he cares about his company and the products he makes, and he knows where his bread is really buttered.
 
DejaWiz said:
^ I think we have more power as a collective than you might think. Carmack just apologized publicly for Rage sucking. That to me means two things: he cares about his company and the products he makes, and he knows where his bread is really buttered.
Click to expand...

Talk is cheap ... Blizzard is doing lots of apologizing for D3 also ... it is more impressive when they actually fix the problems they made ... Although I am still an ID software fan I will be more impressed if they do a good job on Doom 4 ;) ... I think the company CD Projekt (the maker of Witcher) shows a company that is fan centric with the enhanced edition upgrade they offered their fans for free :cool:
 
^ I absolutely agree that actions speak louder then words. However, I also can't blame them for just moving on, since probably 95% of the consumers have already done just that. Chalk it up as a flop, and keep heads from going up asses on the next game development.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top