
Mothers, Don't Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Game Developers - kqr2
http://playthisthing.com/mothers-dont-let-your-children-grow-be-game-developers
======
triplefox
Signs are accumulating that the industry is going to shift towards lower-
budget projects because the blockbuster-centric model has become unsustainable
on multiple levels - cost+time risks, a uncertain future consumer market,
technology hitting a plateau of diminishing returns, and, of course, growth in
online+downloadable. With lower budgets, the projects are less sexy, but also
have less room for catastrophes, crunch included.

I believe that this kind of future environment is more likely to encourage
sustainable practices. Studios working consoles and retail are traditionally
forced towards heavy turnover because the market economics dictate it. But in
a low budget and predominantly online market, a small studio suddenly has a
lot of room to make an impact on their own, without leverage.

Most studios really do want to hang on to their people, and this coming decade
may be when that becomes the norm.

~~~
dmix
They have been saying this for a while about music, its been happening but
slowly.

The main reason it's not moved significantly to lower-budget is because the
major labels have so much influence on the marketing channels. Its incredibly
cheap to make an album now and autotune a good single. But labels can make or
break an artist purely through marketing.

Most people rely on radio, music videos and reviews from big publications to
find music. Its the same with magazines, review sites and events for gaming.

As long as one company can manufacture PR and buzz on a huge scale then the
Blockbuster model will still exist. Most people simply don't put the effort in
and casually buy what sounds popular - and that's completely reasonable.

~~~
palish
"It's the same with magazines, review sites and events for gaming."

If a game isn't fun, people won't play it for long. Spore is an example.
Googling for 'spore fun' reveals quotes from people along these lines:

 _Yeah, its a pointless game, but still fun at the same time. Sure, you have
goals, but they’re just there to get your creations moving. And really,
they’re boring as hell and wouldn’t last if it weren’t for the creation
aspect. The only redeeming gameplay modes are the cell stage and the space
stage. The other ones are short, easy, and a chore._

And another:

 _I played the game for maybe 10 hours. For the first 30min its pretty cool..
i mean being a cell is kinda fun... simple eating and running away. When you
get to different stages like creture, tribal, civ, and space.. first few
minutes is not too bad when you get to try the new stuff.. but soon after you
know how the stage works, its gets repetitive and boring. The concept is
pretty sweet that you get to evolve and design your own creature and buildings
and vehicles.. but the game gets repetitive and boring. It gonna take a lot of
time and trust me youll just get bored of it._

Spore had an insane amount of hype and PR surrounding its launch. They even
had a public demo of Robin Williams creating a character before much was known
about the character creator. And yet, Spore appears to have fizzled out, and
rightly so. Consumers might put up with DRM if the gameplay is good, but DRM +
boring gameplay = 1 1/2 stars on Amazon: [http://www.amazon.com/Spore-
Pc/dp/B000FKBCX4/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1...](http://www.amazon.com/Spore-
Pc/dp/B000FKBCX4/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=videogames&qid=1238853922&sr=8-1)

So the PC/Console gaming scene isn't very similar to the music scene, mostly
because games have to keep people's attention for more than 4 minutes (or ~1
hour for an album).

However, casual gaming is an entirely different beast, and does share a lot of
similarities with the music industry. But all I'm saying is, if a game is bad,
people are going to find out.

~~~
DannoHung
That 1 1/2 star rating on Amazon is pretty meaningless because most of the 1
star reviews were from people JUST railing about the DRM regardless of whether
they'd played the game or not.

I'm no friend of DRM, but if I were Amazon, I'd have deleted those reviews
because of their specious nature.

I didn't like Spore all that much myself, however there's another Will Wright
game that I didn't like all that much: The Sims. I thought _that_ was boring
as hell, but a lot of people seemed to like it, so you might understand why EA
thought it would be wise to advertise the game heavily.

~~~
unalone
The difference was expectations. _The Sims_ billed itself as a life simulation
game, and as such it was a very fun one. _Spore_ claimed to be a revolutionary
worldchanging game. People called it the Citizen Kane of games. It was the
end-all be-all to the history of gaming, the game that did it all. Turns out
it was just a lifesim game, and a lot of people who thought they were playing
the best game ever stopped playing within a day. I know I did, and I'm still a
bit mad at Will Wright for that.

------
dlytle
This isn't about a startup or a small business asking its employees to
contribute to the cause. It's about a large industry that often views its
employees as disposable parts.

The games industry has always been something of a meat grinder for developers.
Long hours/constant crunch mode, comparatively low pay with no overtime, and
no job security (because there are always more kids who want to work on
games).

The article takes issue with the fact that a manager at Epic, a very
influential game developer, has made a statement that could be interpreted as
"you should make your employees work 60 hours a week". To add insult to
injury, he did so while serving as a boardmember of a group that claims to
lobby for improving workplace conditions for developers. To use a fairly
extreme analogy, it's like a coal miners' union rep saying that breathing
masks are for wimps.

This article implies that the IGDA's response to this "scandal" could
negatively impact work conditions for developers at other employers, and at a
time when employees are more vulnerable to those sorts of changes. That's
something to be concerned about.

------
jdileo
My comment is directed to the argument the author makes that working 60 hours
a week is a horrible thing and, indeed, exploitative. I could not disagree
more.

I have been a business owner for nearly a decade and, at its most, was
responsible for leading a company of 110 employees. I am 36 and have never
worked a mere 40 hour week in my life, and it's certainly not something I see
my peers doing either (the successful one's anyway). If you wish such minimum
time invested I suggest getting a job at the post office or DMV.

Building a company is, in large part, about building culture. When done
correctly management does not need to demand that employees work extended
hours, the effort is a by-product of the buy-in to goal and the various
incentive plans that are offered.

Frankly, I believe it is dangerous to suggest in an entrepreneur forum like HN
that working any less than necessary to win is, or should ever be, an option.

~~~
witten
It's dangerous to suggest that working long hours is necessary to win.
Knowledge workers become less productive and make costly mistakes after they
work longer than a particular (surprisingly low) threshold per week. It's one
thing if you're just on the phone all day making sales or sitting in meetings.
It's something else entirely to try to produce working, debugged code when
putting in 60, 70, or 80 hour weeks.

~~~
jdileo
Last week PG listed his 5 most admired entrepreneurs, all of them are to your
definition "knowledge workers"...I doubt any of them would agree with your
thoughts. Winners do what it takes to win, period!

Take JL's book Founders at Work for a spin and note how few place 40 hrs.
working per week as the priority.

~~~
witten
Correlation does not imply causation. There's a culture in the U.S. of over-
working, both within successful companies and in non-successful companies.

