+1, it's all about balance. Yes, games are a business and, yes, suits are business men and women whose agenda is specifically to make money. However, that's a double-edged sword. You can't ship a horrible game and have it be successful, unless it's a franchise that already has an established fan base. Even that damages the franchises reputation, though. However, you also can't wait for the game to be everything the devs want and the quality will never be 100%, it's just not possible. Their job is to determine at which point, between scope and quality, they have the best opportunity to maximize their dollar, knowing they are also able to push maintenance updates out later on, too.
So, yeah, suits aren't evil, they just have an agenda that is generally contradictory than what most gamers are looking for.
You're right; it is about balance. However, it's interesting you mentioned established fan bases for franchises, as lately that has been the gamers hit hardest by the greed of suits. There's a reason the majority of releases accompanying motion picture releases are garbage. There's a reason AC:Unity was buggy to the point of being unplayable from a studio who has proven an ability to release quality games. That reason is the "suits." Unfortunately, investors are becoming so risk averse that they would rather release a mediocre or underwhelming game with an IP that ensures first day sales than they would an inspired idea or great concept without Spider-Man or Assassin's Creed of Call of Duty or Transformers on the box to reap the cash of the jaded fan base that's hoping the next one will be better than the last.
Wow! Actually, AC: Unity was precisely what came to mind. However, in the case of AC: Unity what is the actual impact? Based on my understanding, the whole "No Face" Issue that will go down in history as one of the most awesome bugs ever, was specific to PCs and, more specifically, two specific graphics cards. This is the biggest challenge facing (no pun intended) companies these days, that being scale. So many permutations, it's just ridiculous.
However, the Internets are also not really helping things. First, people simply don't read enough, so "OMG! People with AC: Unity on PC using a GTX770 get a model without a face!!! That's awesome!!!" turns into "OMG AC: Unity is so bad people don't have faces." It's actually quite possible that they didn't know about it. It's also entirely possible they did know about it, but the product manager didn't think that the impact was large enough to care about. With that bug, though, I would find that hard to believe.
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
"Suits", to me, are evil. They suck the life out of what they touch, kind of like a succubus
yeah, but the opposite can happen when you let the artists rule the nest. I know several arts organizations, Some large (Hartford Ballet) that went under because there wasn't sufficient oversight.
You might think that a game is ruined by the business side but I wonder with some developers of there would even be a game without someone saying "whoa, there just isn't the money" or "great, you made your game, now how do you suggest we support it without funds".
Of course, where things can go wrong is when a corporation forgets that the artists are required in order to make a project "good".
Like Skyrim? Need more content? Try my Skyrim mod "Godfred's Tomb."
IMO those who bash the suits don't fully comprehend what a "job" is.
That's always the impression I get too.
"A labor of love" is all good and well, but for each of those there are also devs that endlessly procrastinate or drag their feet while working on a project.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
MMOs have always been both.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein "Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
"Suits", to me, are evil. They suck the life out of what they touch, kind of like a succubus
yeah, but the opposite can happen when you let the artists rule the nest. I know several arts organizations, Some large (Hartford Ballet) that went under because there wasn't sufficient oversight.
You might think that a game is ruined by the business side but I wonder with some developers of there would even be a game without someone saying "whoa, there just isn't the money" or "great, you made your game, now how do you suggest we support it without funds".
Of course, where things can go wrong is when a corporation forgets that the artists are required in order to make a project "good".
I don´t like games publishers who center their entire product and marketing around the concept of profit.
They want to have more money than it costs to make and support the game. What they earn only goes partially back into the actual game, it goes to Ferraris and luxury apartments. There is the problem of suits. They have turned videogames into a profit oriented industry that shows the finger to the gamers, as they are nothing but brainless cash cows to them. That´s why I prefer indie games.
Check out Star Citizen sometime... for an indie game, they're raking in as much as the AAA's for a game that hasn't even been released. Your noble ideas of utopia in the indie world are just that... noble ideas.
Let's be honest here... you have an old computer you want to put on eBay. You quote a price that you would like to get for it. Certainly not less than what it is actually worth and often not what it is actually worth. Do you sell it to the person who bids lowest? To the guy in the middle of the pack? No, you sell it for the highest price you can get for it. Indie developers aren't doing it for some noble cause, they are in fact, doing it for a profit. They may not make billions, but then do you? Still all about the bottom line.
I don't care about investors, shareholders, or corporate mumbo jumbo. I care about gaming as an art form.
MMO's are no longer being made as an art form and you can thank the suits for that.
Can AAA art be made without $$$? If I'm investing, you bet I'd have input.
We frequently hear of business baddies guilty of great disservices but rarely hear devs admit screw ups. If at all, it only comes out years after the calamity and finger pointing.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
"Suits", to me, are evil. They suck the life out of what they touch, kind of like a succubus
yeah, but the opposite can happen when you let the artists rule the nest. I know several arts organizations, Some large (Hartford Ballet) that went under because there wasn't sufficient oversight.
You might think that a game is ruined by the business side but I wonder with some developers of there would even be a game without someone saying "whoa, there just isn't the money" or "great, you made your game, now how do you suggest we support it without funds".
Of course, where things can go wrong is when a corporation forgets that the artists are required in order to make a project "good".
Well said
Good points all around.
In my experience, though, things work best when there is equal respect in both directions. The 'suits' acknowledge that the artists are there to do more than just wield a stylis. Unfortunately, that is all too uncommon. There are a few studios that come to mind that have found this balance, but many more that haven't.
Many of the producers I've met in particular seem to think they should be making creative decisions. They try to drive the project in one way or another. This is usually disastrous. It usually works best when the creatives are allowed to determine the schedule, and how to make the project a reality; and the suits are there to fund that direction and to make sure that the artists stick to it. And even then, the good ones always save a bit of the budget for if things don't go according to plan.
Because anyone with experience in this field knows that it can happen often. Either unforeseen bugs pop up, or you run into an interesting design problem, and have to change the way part of the game works. It's part of the process, and it's when people don't accommodate for that reality that things tend to go south.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
Pretty sure the NDAs cover all of that.
Even when a project gets shut down, none of that code will ever see the light of day again. (Unless someone manages to smuggle it out, and even then selling it would be out of the question because of legal repercussions)
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
On game release: Who cares when they release if the game is a crappy, incomplete, bugfest? "Release Dates" should be a guideline, not set in stone. But when the "money" gets low, the suits get nervous and step in and say, "Realease it now.", no matter what state it is in. (It does not help that message boards are filled with whiny players saying, "Release it noooooww!")
There is a huge difference between making money (keeping the business profitable) and MAKING MONEY (affording investors their new 100 foot yacht).
If the devs released a good game with minimal bugs, I do not care. I do realize I am kind of odd in this attitude and yes, there would most likely be massive crying and whining on message boards by "kids" that just can not wait for the new game.
I my opinion, a "Project Manager" is much different from a "Suit." Usually, a Project Manager is the go between for the Suits and Developers.
Anyone whose primary motivation is making the most they can while investing as little as possible can never be seen "in a good perspective" for me.
"Suits", to me, are evil. They suck the life out of what they touch, kind of like a succubus
AHH games ARE A BUSINESS. So are movies, etc. You have a very naive attitude because without the bottom line, there WOUD BE NO MMO's.
People who understand money HAVE to be in charge as they see the big picture. Most gamers don't see that and that is the issue. It is all about themselves and not the survival of a company.
Most developers do not have 100 ft yacht . You have totally made no sense of your argument and there fore should be discounted for this discussion.
I don't care about investors, shareholders, or corporate mumbo jumbo. I care about gaming as an art form.
MMO's are no longer being made as an art form and you can thank the suits for that.
Can AAA art be made without $$$? If I'm investing, you bet I'd have input.
We frequently hear of business baddies guilty of great disservices but rarely hear devs admit screw ups. If at all, it only comes out years after the calamity and finger pointing.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
I think devs get more than enough flack. Indeed many have quite the industry because of it.
If devs promise feature X or Y, and then are told by their overseers to cut features X or Y, they get ALL of the flack for that. Even if it's not their fault. It's not uncommon for them to get threats to them or their family as a result. Even if it wasn't their decision.
That said, a lot of problems come from the highlighted statement you made:
So lets look at this from a similar situation, because I think some perspective is perhaps needed.
Say you're getting your car fixed. You've never built a car, and you don't have the knowledge to fix it yourself. Should you then go into the shop, and tell the mechanic where to put which part? Because that's essentially what is happening.
Some degree of input can be okay, but laid out ahead of time. Going IN to the agreement, not after the project has started. As an artist myself can tell you it is EXTREMELY common to get projects where your client thinks they have good input, and is determined to have you follow it. In nearly every case the end result is a sub-par product. It's because they do not have the same knowledge base you do. They may think they do, but they most definitely do not.
The amount of knowledge in a good dev studio is pretty impressive once you have a real grasp on it. However, to some suits, a dev studio is basically a bunch of kids working in an office w/ crayons. Heck, I've actually been on a project before where we had a walk-in from some potential investors. The suit leading the tour was showing them some of the creative workspaces and literally said 'this is where these guys play with their digital pens to make pretty pictures on the computer'. I damned near walked out on the spot.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
Pretty sure the NDAs cover all of that.
Even when a project gets shut down, none of that code will ever see the light of day again. (Unless someone manages to smuggle it out, and even then selling it would be out of the question because of legal repercussions)
Ideally yes, but realistically not necessarily.
It depends on a lot of factors, and is a huge grey area. That said, you are almost never going to see a situation where a whole games worth of code is re-sold. It has happened, but it is rare. If anything it's common for an artist or programmer to save / smuggle / remember things they've worked on or are proud of, and to carry that over onto future projects. And tbh I think it should be that way. Especially for artists or programmers, who need to show their work to continue getting jobs. It's a big deal.
Originally posted by AlBQuirky **snip for length***
AHH games ARE A BUSINESS. So are movies, etc. You have a very naive attitude because without the bottom line, there WOUD BE NO MMO's.
People who understand money HAVE to be in charge as they see the big picture. Most gamers don't see that and that is the issue. It is all about themselves and not the survival of a company.
Most developers do not have 100 ft yacht . You have totally made no sense of your argument and there fore should be discounted for this discussion.
The problem comes in the scope of the management.
Being 'in charge' is fine as a framework. I.E. We will give you X dollars to make your game, and you have until Y date to make it happen. However if those same people start trying to play artist and begin making creative decisions, it usually creates many more problems than it helps. And indeed, can often end up costing those very same people more money than if they would've just stayed out of it.
Essentially, the way it's supposed to work is the creative lead (lead designer), the lead producer, and the financier (which sometimes is the same person as the previous two) should all have an understanding of the larder picture. It is the lead designer's job to make sure the vision of that larger picture remains intact. It is the producers job to make sure that it remains on schedule, and it is the financier's responsibility to make sure it stays funded.
Any of those 3 can hit roadbumps, hickups, delays. But once you start seeing those 3 roles interfering with one another, it always creates issues.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
Pretty sure the NDAs cover all of that.
Even when a project gets shut down, none of that code will ever see the light of day again. (Unless someone manages to smuggle it out, and even then selling it would be out of the question because of legal repercussions)
Ideally yes, but realistically not necessarily.
It depends on a lot of factors, and is a huge grey area. That said, you are almost never going to see a situation where a whole games worth of code is re-sold. It has happened, but it is rare. If anything it's common for an artist or programmer to save / smuggle / remember things they've worked on or are proud of, and to carry that over onto future projects. And tbh I think it should be that way. Especially for artists or programmers, who need to show their work to continue getting jobs. It's a big deal.
Yeah, you can't force them to forget the things they've learned while working on the project. Though I imagine if it were possible some companies would actually go there to keep their secrets. xD
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
I don´t like games publishers who center their entire product and marketing around the concept of profit.
They want to have more money than it costs to make and support the game. What they earn only goes partially back into the actual game, it goes to Ferraris and luxury apartments. There is the problem of suits. They have turned videogames into a profit oriented industry that shows the finger to the gamers, as they are nothing but brainless cash cows to them. That´s why I prefer indie games.
Indie devs have been guilty of that too. Some sell virtual items in cash shops (outside ks) before alpha stages, pre-subs, and alpha subs (maybe decisions by corporates?). Think McQuaid's 3 months' advance from bootstrap funds. At least investors are up front about their priorities.
I respectfully disagree. "Suits" turned MMOs into a business, instead of entertainment.
When your top priority is "the bottom line", then creativity (aka: risk) goes away.
On game release: Who cares when they release if the game is a crappy, incomplete, bugfest? "Release Dates" should be a guideline, not set in stone. But when the "money" gets low, the suits get nervous and step in and say, "Realease it now.", no matter what state it is in. (It does not help that message boards are filled with whiny players saying, "Release it noooooww!")
There is a huge difference between making money (keeping the business profitable) and MAKING MONEY (affording investors their new 100 foot yacht).
If the devs released a good game with minimal bugs, I do not care. I do realize I am kind of odd in this attitude and yes, there would most likely be massive crying and whining on message boards by "kids" that just can not wait for the new game.
I my opinion, a "Project Manager" is much different from a "Suit." Usually, a Project Manager is the go between for the Suits and Developers.
Anyone whose primary motivation is making the most they can while investing as little as possible can never be seen "in a good perspective" for me.
"Suits", to me, are evil. They suck the life out of what they touch, kind of like a succubus
I respect your point but if devs fail to meet the initial schedule, they either lack assertiveness or have overestimated their abilities. If the game sucks at the deadline, it's the devs' fault, the suits just expected a functional game as contracted for. Where would additional money come from? When the well runs dry, the team rarely press on, it dissolves because it costs to live.
except the bulk of the "development" cost of these AAA is advertising not the actual development of the game. The suits set a deadline with little regard for the state of the game at any point [...]
This falls under assertion: "we need more time and programmers."
I can't remember hearing an MMO CEO saying,"That's the creative directors decision, cause it's his area of expertise, so I won't interfere."
Suits want us to be good little sheeple, keep silent and spend our money.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
Originally posted by theAsnaSo are "corporate suites". People that manage a project/ team don't really need to know how to code.
You can't lead ppl if you do not understand their work. The term "Suits" refers to executives running the company, they are not leading particular projects or are being involved in any other way.
You seem to be mistaken management positions by several levels.
The suits watch over the bills and delays in development are expensive, but it is the responsibility of developers to meet deadlines. They are the one to be blames in most cases.
I don't care about investors, shareholders, or corporate mumbo jumbo. I care about gaming as an art form.
MMO's are no longer being made as an art form and you can thank the suits for that.
Can AAA art be made without $$$? If I'm investing, you bet I'd have input.
We frequently hear of business baddies guilty of great disservices but rarely hear devs admit screw ups. If at all, it only comes out years after the calamity and finger pointing.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
I think devs get more than enough flack. Indeed many have quite the industry because of it.
If devs promise feature X or Y, and then are told by their overseers to cut features X or Y, they get ALL of the flack for that. Even if it's not their fault. It's not uncommon for them to get threats to them or their family as a result. Even if it wasn't their decision.
That said, a lot of problems come from the highlighted statement you made:
So lets look at this from a similar situation, because I think some perspective is perhaps needed.
Say you're getting your car fixed. You've never built a car, and you don't have the knowledge to fix it yourself. Should you then go into the shop, and tell the mechanic where to put which part? Because that's essentially what is happening.
Some degree of input can be okay, but laid out ahead of time. Going IN to the agreement, not after the project has started. As an artist myself can tell you it is EXTREMELY common to get projects where your client thinks they have good input, and is determined to have you follow it. In nearly every case the end result is a sub-par product. It's because they do not have the same knowledge base you do. They may think they do, but they most definitely do not.
The amount of knowledge in a good dev studio is pretty impressive once you have a real grasp on it. However, to some suits, a dev studio is basically a bunch of kids working in an office w/ crayons. Heck, I've actually been on a project before where we had a walk-in from some potential investors. The suit leading the tour was showing them some of the creative workspaces and literally said 'this is where these guys play with their digital pens to make pretty pictures on the computer'. I damned near walked out on the spot.
Or this perspective:
I've never built a computer but if I'm going to pay you to build one, I want black casing, 27" Samsung monitor, AMD....investors have a sense of what sells. They're not after the world's best game, they're after the world's best selling game.
I'm not a game dev but I'm a software dev, I know all too well. As an investor though, if you show up at the deadline with a request for more time and money instead of the specified working game, Ima be pissed.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
Pretty sure the NDAs cover all of that.
Even when a project gets shut down, none of that code will ever see the light of day again. (Unless someone manages to smuggle it out, and even then selling it would be out of the question because of legal repercussions)
Ideally yes, but realistically not necessarily.
It depends on a lot of factors, and is a huge grey area. That said, you are almost never going to see a situation where a whole games worth of code is re-sold. It has happened, but it is rare. If anything it's common for an artist or programmer to save / smuggle / remember things they've worked on or are proud of, and to carry that over onto future projects. And tbh I think it should be that way. Especially for artists or programmers, who need to show their work to continue getting jobs. It's a big deal.
Yeah, you can't force them to forget the things they've learned while working on the project. Though I imagine if it were possible some companies would actually go there to keep their secrets. xD
You can force them not to employ any such feature for other games though. Ie.I'm not funding this R&D for the competition to use.
So are "corporate suites". People that manage a project/ team don't really need to know how to code.
You can't lead ppl if you do not understand their work. The term "Suits" refers to executives running the company, they are not leading particular projects or are being involved in any other way.
You seem to be mistaken management positions by several levels.
The suits watch over the bills and delays in development are expensive, but it is the responsibility of developers to meet deadlines. They are the one to be blames in most cases.
Right, it's as dumb as a viagra salesman with no money or experience in programing being in charge as "the Ideas Guy", but it is reasonable for suits to have expectations and impose limits. --> Don't do dumb shit with my money.
The real villains are the people who buy games before they're ready. If no one bought games that obviously weren't ready for launch, then no one would release such games.
The "decline" of games lies not with those at the top, but with those at the bottom that continue to lap up whatever dribbles down.
Thumbs up to this. As gamers we have to stop paying for dribble, ignore the false hype of crooked reviewers and let bad game companies suffer the consequences of their crap labours. When our voices are ignored we must speak with our money, or in this case...the lack of it.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.
Comments
Wow! Actually, AC: Unity was precisely what came to mind. However, in the case of AC: Unity what is the actual impact? Based on my understanding, the whole "No Face" Issue that will go down in history as one of the most awesome bugs ever, was specific to PCs and, more specifically, two specific graphics cards. This is the biggest challenge facing (no pun intended) companies these days, that being scale. So many permutations, it's just ridiculous.
However, the Internets are also not really helping things. First, people simply don't read enough, so "OMG! People with AC: Unity on PC using a GTX770 get a model without a face!!! That's awesome!!!" turns into "OMG AC: Unity is so bad people don't have faces." It's actually quite possible that they didn't know about it. It's also entirely possible they did know about it, but the product manager didn't think that the impact was large enough to care about. With that bug, though, I would find that hard to believe.
Crazkanuk
----------------
Azarelos - 90 Hunter - Emerald
Durnzig - 90 Paladin - Emerald
Demonicron - 90 Death Knight - Emerald Dream - US
Tankinpain - 90 Monk - Azjol-Nerub - US
Brindell - 90 Warrior - Emerald Dream - US
----------------
yeah, but the opposite can happen when you let the artists rule the nest. I know several arts organizations, Some large (Hartford Ballet) that went under because there wasn't sufficient oversight.
You might think that a game is ruined by the business side but I wonder with some developers of there would even be a game without someone saying "whoa, there just isn't the money" or "great, you made your game, now how do you suggest we support it without funds".
Of course, where things can go wrong is when a corporation forgets that the artists are required in order to make a project "good".
Godfred's Tomb Trailer: https://youtu.be/-nsXGddj_4w
Original Skyrim: https://www.nexusmods.com/skyrim/mods/109547
Serph toze kindly has started a walk-through. https://youtu.be/UIelCK-lldo
That's always the impression I get too.
"A labor of love" is all good and well, but for each of those there are also devs that endlessly procrastinate or drag their feet while working on a project.
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
MMOs have always been both.
There isn't a "right" or "wrong" way to play, if you want to use a screwdriver to put nails into wood, have at it, simply don't complain when the guy next to you with the hammer is doing it much better and easier. - Allein
"Graphics are often supplied by Engines that (some) MMORPG's are built in" - Spuffyre
Well said
Check out Star Citizen sometime... for an indie game, they're raking in as much as the AAA's for a game that hasn't even been released. Your noble ideas of utopia in the indie world are just that... noble ideas.
Let's be honest here... you have an old computer you want to put on eBay. You quote a price that you would like to get for it. Certainly not less than what it is actually worth and often not what it is actually worth. Do you sell it to the person who bids lowest? To the guy in the middle of the pack? No, you sell it for the highest price you can get for it. Indie developers aren't doing it for some noble cause, they are in fact, doing it for a profit. They may not make billions, but then do you? Still all about the bottom line.
Can AAA art be made without $$$? If I'm investing, you bet I'd have input.
We frequently hear of business baddies guilty of great disservices but rarely hear devs admit screw ups. If at all, it only comes out years after the calamity and finger pointing.
If a contract dictates a playable game with X features by Y date, and is not met, what consequences do devs face? I've never heard of funds being reimbursed, I've only seen deadline extensions and additional financial contributions being made to devs; or the occasional shut down.which leaves nothing to show for money spent. Rewards for fuck ups? Devs can resell their progress (paid for by initial publishers) to other publishers, but what do initial investors walk away with?
Good points all around.
In my experience, though, things work best when there is equal respect in both directions. The 'suits' acknowledge that the artists are there to do more than just wield a stylis. Unfortunately, that is all too uncommon. There are a few studios that come to mind that have found this balance, but many more that haven't.
Many of the producers I've met in particular seem to think they should be making creative decisions. They try to drive the project in one way or another. This is usually disastrous. It usually works best when the creatives are allowed to determine the schedule, and how to make the project a reality; and the suits are there to fund that direction and to make sure that the artists stick to it. And even then, the good ones always save a bit of the budget for if things don't go according to plan.
Because anyone with experience in this field knows that it can happen often. Either unforeseen bugs pop up, or you run into an interesting design problem, and have to change the way part of the game works. It's part of the process, and it's when people don't accommodate for that reality that things tend to go south.
Pretty sure the NDAs cover all of that.
Even when a project gets shut down, none of that code will ever see the light of day again. (Unless someone manages to smuggle it out, and even then selling it would be out of the question because of legal repercussions)
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
AHH games ARE A BUSINESS. So are movies, etc. You have a very naive attitude because without the bottom line, there WOUD BE NO MMO's.
People who understand money HAVE to be in charge as they see the big picture. Most gamers don't see that and that is the issue. It is all about themselves and not the survival of a company.
Most developers do not have 100 ft yacht . You have totally made no sense of your argument and there fore should be discounted for this discussion.
This discussion is about industry biases, dev accountability, their exaggerated expectations and one-sided demands.
I think devs get more than enough flack. Indeed many have quite the industry because of it.
If devs promise feature X or Y, and then are told by their overseers to cut features X or Y, they get ALL of the flack for that. Even if it's not their fault. It's not uncommon for them to get threats to them or their family as a result. Even if it wasn't their decision.
That said, a lot of problems come from the highlighted statement you made:
So lets look at this from a similar situation, because I think some perspective is perhaps needed.
Say you're getting your car fixed. You've never built a car, and you don't have the knowledge to fix it yourself. Should you then go into the shop, and tell the mechanic where to put which part? Because that's essentially what is happening.
Some degree of input can be okay, but laid out ahead of time. Going IN to the agreement, not after the project has started. As an artist myself can tell you it is EXTREMELY common to get projects where your client thinks they have good input, and is determined to have you follow it. In nearly every case the end result is a sub-par product. It's because they do not have the same knowledge base you do. They may think they do, but they most definitely do not.
The amount of knowledge in a good dev studio is pretty impressive once you have a real grasp on it. However, to some suits, a dev studio is basically a bunch of kids working in an office w/ crayons. Heck, I've actually been on a project before where we had a walk-in from some potential investors. The suit leading the tour was showing them some of the creative workspaces and literally said 'this is where these guys play with their digital pens to make pretty pictures on the computer'. I damned near walked out on the spot.
Ideally yes, but realistically not necessarily.
It depends on a lot of factors, and is a huge grey area. That said, you are almost never going to see a situation where a whole games worth of code is re-sold. It has happened, but it is rare. If anything it's common for an artist or programmer to save / smuggle / remember things they've worked on or are proud of, and to carry that over onto future projects. And tbh I think it should be that way. Especially for artists or programmers, who need to show their work to continue getting jobs. It's a big deal.
The problem comes in the scope of the management.
Being 'in charge' is fine as a framework. I.E. We will give you X dollars to make your game, and you have until Y date to make it happen. However if those same people start trying to play artist and begin making creative decisions, it usually creates many more problems than it helps. And indeed, can often end up costing those very same people more money than if they would've just stayed out of it.
Essentially, the way it's supposed to work is the creative lead (lead designer), the lead producer, and the financier (which sometimes is the same person as the previous two) should all have an understanding of the larder picture. It is the lead designer's job to make sure the vision of that larger picture remains intact. It is the producers job to make sure that it remains on schedule, and it is the financier's responsibility to make sure it stays funded.
Any of those 3 can hit roadbumps, hickups, delays. But once you start seeing those 3 roles interfering with one another, it always creates issues.
Yeah, you can't force them to forget the things they've learned while working on the project. Though I imagine if it were possible some companies would actually go there to keep their secrets. xD
My SWTOR referral link for those wanting to give the game a try. (Newbies get a welcome package while returning players get a few account upgrades to help with their preferred status.)
https://www.ashesofcreation.com/ref/Callaron/
Indie devs have been guilty of that too. Some sell virtual items in cash shops (outside ks) before alpha stages, pre-subs, and alpha subs (maybe decisions by corporates?). Think McQuaid's 3 months' advance from bootstrap funds. At least investors are up front about their priorities.
This falls under assertion: "we need more time and programmers."
I can't remember hearing an MMO CEO saying,"That's the creative directors decision, cause it's his area of expertise, so I won't interfere."
Suits want us to be good little sheeple, keep silent and spend our money.
"We all do the best we can based on life experience, point of view, and our ability to believe in ourselves." - Naropa "We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." SR Covey
You can't lead ppl if you do not understand their work. The term "Suits" refers to executives running the company, they are not leading particular projects or are being involved in any other way.
You seem to be mistaken management positions by several levels.
The suits watch over the bills and delays in development are expensive, but it is the responsibility of developers to meet deadlines. They are the one to be blames in most cases.
Or this perspective:
I've never built a computer but if I'm going to pay you to build one, I want black casing, 27" Samsung monitor, AMD....investors have a sense of what sells. They're not after the world's best game, they're after the world's best selling game.
I'm not a game dev but I'm a software dev, I know all too well. As an investor though, if you show up at the deadline with a request for more time and money instead of the specified working game, Ima be pissed.
You can force them not to employ any such feature for other games though. Ie.I'm not funding this R&D for the competition to use.
Right, it's as dumb as a viagra salesman with no money or experience in programing being in charge as "the Ideas Guy", but it is reasonable for suits to have expectations and impose limits. --> Don't do dumb shit with my money.
Thumbs up to this. As gamers we have to stop paying for dribble, ignore the false hype of crooked reviewers and let bad game companies suffer the consequences of their crap labours. When our voices are ignored we must speak with our money, or in this case...the lack of it.
I've got a feevah, and the only prescription... is more cowbell.