LOL right, so if Bioware simply HADN'T released COMPLETELY OPTIONAL DLC then they would have made the list, right? And maybe beaten some of those iPhone devs who made the top 5?

I mean, I like Cut the Rope as much as the next guy, but ME2 takes a whole other level of talent. It's one of the best games of all time.

Perhaps you should revise your formula to be a bit more accurate.

Main title should weight more than DCL packs. Bioware is a recognized master at storytelling. Sure DA's DLC wasn't as well recieved, but at the same time the DLC for Mass Effect 2 to earned top honors in the DLC Category, and set the bar for future DLC's across the board.

We're talking about rating the studios on their game releases, right? Not their DLCs. DLCs are not always full games. Many DLCs are technically not rated, so this isn't even a good basis for including these in any studio portfolio when looking for a basis of ranking.

Make the top 100 dynamic and filterable, but at it's core, without DLCs.

The DLC point is just one of many objections you could raise - and one of many that LOTs of developers have discussed with me today.

A more fundamental one is how you can equally compare a review for a 99p game and a £39.99 one. People are always going to be much more forgiving if they've spent less money on something, so it really is apples and oranges. It's like saying the division four champions of any given sport are better than the division one champions simply because they got one point more at the end of the season.

It's a half baked list, and there's quite a backlash among developers about it. no doubt though, the develop staff will come on here and respond that it's all just sour grapes. Aside from admit they're wrong, there's not a else they can do, I suppose.

When the industry looks back on this phase of extraordinary transition, the first people that will be laughed at are those blinded individuals who thought games of 99p and £39.99 deserved to be counted differently.

The arbitrary price-tag of £39.99, once plucked from thin air from the hobbyist era of yesteryear, holds the industry back from true global acceptance.

Games can generate headline-grabbing billions of dollars, but they’ll never be truly mass-market when a price-wall so high stands between game creators and all consumers.

That’s a key reason why iOS gaming is a bold step towards mass-market success for the industry as a whole.

What game did our beloved Prime Minister talk about last year?

Mass Effect 2?
Black Ops?

No, it was Angry Birds. 59p

But don’t worry, soon it will be released on the 3DS as a £9.99 game – clearly only then will it be accepted by the bewildered old guard of the industry.

To look down on these ‘smaller’ games as not deserving the same platform as triple-As is, if I’m frank, rearward thinking at best.

All games in the Develop 100 strive to fill your spare time with joy. That’s always been the battlegroud, it’s just that Apple has bought that fight to our tablets and our mobile phones.

Without wanting to appear patronising, Fran; a game is good if it’s good.

The App Store, XBLA and PSN are each allowing exceptionally creative to make great games.

Games which - and who could have imagined! - are more appealing than things built on studio factory-lines.

Develop, our the entire editorial team, is incredibly proud of what Develop 100 says about games today.

So far we haven’t directly heard criticism from any studio that made it in the top 100, but we’ll keep an ear out.

Might have to wait a while, of course, so we’re off to the App Store.

Bioware's output has been atrocious lately. With SWTOR on development they are spread too thin and they are rushing everything they can out the door.

Shame.

I'm not sure what prompted you to go off on a rant about phone games being allowed on the list, but I'll bite.

Let's see, what game did the PM talk about? Angry Birds. Fortunately I don't go look to Mr. Cameron for my game reviews. The games that the rest of the industry talked about included Mass Effect 2 and Black Ops... remember how they both won multiple Game of the Year awards? You'd think those developers then would be considered somewhat... IDK... good? At least good enough for the top 100 list?

I mean come on, you guys know it, that's why you wrote this article - to nip the criticism in the bud. When such a gross error is a result of the way you do your statistics - it's time for a new formula.

Fine, a game is good if its good. So then WHY would you include DLC that isn't a full game? I mean, you're including Origins DLC without including the score for Origins. You can't play Origins DLC without also playing Origins. It should be incorporated into the overall experience of playing that game. Sure, you can go buy Cut the Rope on the app store, but you can't buy "Leliana's Song" without buying Origins. You CAN buy Origins without buying Leliana's Song, so that's the actual game.

Your "a game is a game" argument defeats your own inclusion of DLC. I wouldn't have such a problem with it if it wasn't equally weighed as a full game or you only included DLC for the games that were also released that year. But if Bioware releases a 95-rated $60 Mass Effect 2 and then a 55-rated $5 OPTIONAL DLC, and you weight them the same, you've effectively lowered the rating of that game to a 75. That's not something most gamers would agree, it's not something most developers would agree with, and it's certainly not something that a professional critic, whose views you're supposedly representing, would agree with.

Whatever, dunno why I spent time on this. Clearly, the numbers don't lie - Bioware's multiple Game of the Year awards obviously mean they had a worse 2010 than hundreds of other developers. LOL.

By the same standards we know that Lizzy Smith of Springfield IL is a better actor than Natalie Portman.

Lizzy's school newspaper gave a glowing review for her portrayal of Tweedle Dum in the 5th grade production of Through the Looking Glass, but I'm pretty sure that one of the 5 movies that Natalie was in was less than stelar.

"Without wanting to appear patronising, Fran; a game is good if it’s good."

That's not at all patronising. However, it IS missing the point. I've used the example of football teams, the poster above has used the example of actors. You're obviously not getting it though, so we'll just agree to disagree.

In a way, I'm glad you're ignoring my counterpoints and just repeating what you initially said - it says a lot about the type of person I'm talking to.

I won't bother trying to engage with you if you can't even bear the idea that you look foolish by defending a ridiculous, backwards and snobbish attitude towards games.

I would urge you to think - genuinely to meditate on some key issues - before you speak.

@Rob
In a way, I'm glad you're ignoring most counterpoints and just repeating what you initially said - it says a lot about the type of person we're talking to.

I won't bother trying to engage with you if you can't even bear the idea that you look foolish by defending a ridiculous, backwards and snobbish attitude towards developers.

I would urge you to think - genuinely to meditate on some key issues - before you speak.

---
Funny how that snobbish near-insulting talk of yours imho just fits perfectly when turned 180 degrees..

Of course you have to credit a dev for making a 99p game that is so incredibly successful like Angry Birds, but I think a lot of us have a problem with develop-online rating developers and seem totally to forget about how much developing was involved, comparing games that can be done (and probably were done) within a week to some multi-million dollar projects where dozens, if not hundreds of people took part in development.

Sure one of the keypoints is how much we enjoy a game for rating it's success, but then make a list "The top 100 games that brought enjoyment in 2010, and their developers" or something like that.

Just to bring in another comparison besides sport or acting, if you made a list of "Top 100 best car manufacturers of all time", would it not be strange to see Bobby-Car right next to General Motors and Hotwheels?

Thanks for the feedback, Neithan, some interesting points you've raised.

We're proud of Develop 100 and all the work and research put into it. Equally important is the honest feedback we get. The points you've raised are helpful and will be taken on board.

Thanks again.

I do not accept your explanation. Bioware is a company that has a proven legacy of releasing quality content, from Neverwinter Nights 1-2, to KOTOR 1-2, to Mass Effect 1-2. Seperate DLCs for a game like Dragon Age, which was a stellar game in its own right, should not account for this grevious oversight.

Making a list of top developers and not taking previous work before 2010 into account is about the most ignorant standard you can make when doing something as grandiose as a top 100 developer list.

Whoever made this list should stick with shopping lists... though they'd have an issue putting some essentials like milk, fruit, veggies, bread and water on the list. They may be important to your health, but what have they done new and interesting in 2010?

Having read with interest all of the above points, I can't help but think that this one "league table" is inappropriate and insufficient to demonstrate the two very different sections of the game development market.

Can you realistically compare, say, Angry Birds, to Fallout: New Vegas? It's not just the price that's different - it's the NEED of the consumer. I don't play casual games, period. I play big titles (such as Mass Effect 2 - which, as it happens, was a horrific console port on the PC, by the way), yet I share an office with those who simply cannot comprehend the idea that I spend all my weekend playing Civilization V and don't consider it "a waste".

By all means, do a league table/chart/list/whatever, but be realistic - separate the two types of product. One list for casual gamers/games, another for AAAs.

...and it does seem a bit silly to leave out a developer from the table if the quality of their product in the year the table was produced was below par...it doesn't make them any less successful/powerful/popular a studio.

Nice comments gents, made me laugh over my sandwich this lunch.

Seriously though it has caused a bit of an uproar in the office here, to the point that people probably wont bother looking at the next Develop 100 as its comparing apples with oranges, throwing up extremely odd results

For me the 'casual vs AAA' market is the same as 'TV vs Movies' - both are perfectly legitimate artforms but work on very different budgets. They have different awards for each sector and that would make sense here too

Bioware has legacy, did very well with titles but also keeps rushing stuff out...its time another company desrves to be in there. if your using football as an example liverpool dont win the premier league every year because of legacy, you cant base it on history all the time, what about the present!

"Bioware has legacy, did very well with titles but also keeps rushing stuff out...its time another company desrves to be in there. if your using football as an example liverpool dont win the premier league every year because of legacy, you cant base it on history all the time, what about the present!"

So, by your logic, if Liverpool won the F.A. cup 10 years in a run, but failed to win it in 2010, you'd write them out of history books and rank them BELOW a bottom division side who happened to come top of their league?

I thought the DLC issue is more like a marketing failure than it has anything to do with development. To solely talk about games, how can u compare phone games with console games... would u play a phone game hours straight?

They haven't had a game worth buying since Mass Effect 1, so this sounds about right.

Dragon Age: Origins wasn't worth buying? I beg to differ.

I thought the entire list was a bit ridiculous. It was filled with companies that have only released one game, and are yet to prove themselves on the long run.

I would have to agree with many of the comments that this list of so-called top 100 developers is the strangest compilation of any top-N developers I have ever seen. As a game developer myself, I took a look at the list out of curiosity to see if any of the studios I consider to do great work and have a great studio culture would be on the list. Much to my dismay, flipping (virtually) from one page to the next (past one to many ads) turned into an exercise of disbelief. Never again will I look at the Develop 100, and never again will I look to Develop as the voice of the game developer on the web.

You guys goofed and now you are making it worse by trying to defend it. When a top game developer doesn't make it into your top 100....you have missed the point. Pick up your game!

Bullshit.
You can argue that 'the whole lowers the average' but frankly, if you're putting single game indies higher than the developers behind ME2, as well as several other IP's (uhh, Baldurs Gate?), then you're nothing but a humour coloumn.
At this rate, I'd rather get my 'credible' ratings from SpikeTV. They show me titties.

Ok, let's look at this from another perspective. I've read what both sides had to say and I see people edging up to the real point of the matter, in my view, but not quite getting there.

DLC is linked to the original game. We can all agree with that. When I think of Dragon Age: Origins, I don't think of just the part on the disk. I think of what was on the disk plus the many DLCs that were released.

Ultimately, how do I judge the game? I look at it as a whole. Sure, they were released in separate years, but now you're being accountants and not really asking yourself about the quality of the game and its' content. Additionally, to argue that each DLC is equally a part of the score that you might give the compilation of content that was Dragon Age: Origins is not really "correct" either. Either you look at it from the standpoint of dollars that the DLC cost or the amount of hours the DLC added to the game, and that's how you derive your percentages.

That's not asking too much. Honestly, people have to own the game to play the DLC, so release date isn't so much as relevant as the retention rate of the media.

So do some calculation and you wind up with a number that isn't going to skew the results so badly. It just seems lazy to pretend that DLC are completely separate from the game it is completely dependent upon to play. To just average everything together seems like you haven't taken a real statistics or accounting class.

Dragon Age: Origins and it's related DLC are ultimately part of the same product. That's my primary argument. I run into these kinds of debates (and yelling matches) daily, trying to deal with accountants and engineers. Accountants want to see thing one way, engineers another, but ultimately both would agree that a cost center or property isn't budgeted for or projected upon based on a single year. The accountants would argue that the product is all part of the same IP, and the engineers would say the additions are only parts of the whole.

Being both, I'd say they are both right.

Comparing triple-A titles to iOS releases is less of an issue here. The author is obviously trying to provoke this debate. Frankly, I don't mind the comparison as long as the calculations make sense. In this case, they don't.

"It seems impossible. On face value, this one of those rare occasions when the statistics aren’t telling the entire truth, surely?"

They aren't telling the entire truth because of the way they were set up. "An aggregate system of averages" basically means if I released an iOS game that broke your threshold with an 82% average from metacritic, my company is better than BioWare or Ubisoft Montreal for the year.

Seriously?

Think about it.

By "part of a whole" as engineers would see DLC, I am trying to imply functional dependency.

Functional dependency is a relevant issue not reflected in your calculations.

Accountants simply see an IP as a cost center against which they keep track of expenses, accruals, and revenues.

Either way, if you are just aggregating yearly averages, it isn't very rigorous. Presumably, that's what you are trying to do... put out a report that makes sense and reflects well on your publication.

Maybe I'm wrong and you are just trying to draw more readers by causing controversy. You are a business, after all..

If it aims to give an idea of what quality you can expect from a studio in the future it needs to use a rolling 3 yr average and weight the metacritic scores by number of reviews. (DLCs tend to only get a handful).

I can't see what the 100 list is useful for as it stands.

Look at Dragon Age 2's user ratings, maybe then you'll understand.

Develop, are you're seriously telling me that "Big Bucket Software", a one man team out of Australia that's only released 1 MC worth iOS game, is better than Bioware...

I don't care what excuse you give, you've made your future Top 100 lists laughable.

"Bullshit.
You can argue that 'the whole lowers the average' but frankly, if you're putting single game indies higher than the developers behind ME2, as well as several other IP's (uhh, Baldurs Gate?), then you're nothing but a humour coloumn."

and dear develop this list was a bit ridiculous .. sorry.. you can't compare apples and oranges. You mixed bubble gum and snack bars, with nouvelle cuisine and advanced gastronomy!

you mean if Bioware had made only One casual game that was rated 10/10 you would put them in the number 1 place?

casual games are great fun and they have a unique value, but this is a bit too much. I play many of them on the web, on my handheld and console, but I was negatively surprised to see some irrelevant studios in that list and not companies such as Bioware... simply preposterous.. numbers don't lie, but it also depends how we use them and what we want to say.

These guys have made some of the best games of all time!!! games that people remember, games that defined the way games are played! Something that i seriously doubt will happen with any of these pleasant "bubble gum" games as i call them.

I understand that you can't pull that list back, sadly what's done is done, but you better consider better options of classification and criteria regarding your list next year. make 2 lists of top 50 if you like and again call them Develop's Top 100. But this simply was blasphemy.