When Game Development Goes Bad

Thanks to Boomtown for its article discussing an insight into the failure of a game developer, in this case developer Escape Factory. The post-mortem styled interview touches on problems with engine licensing ("We had no PS2 experience whatsoever, which is why we chose to use the Unreal engine, lured by its promise of PS2 compatibility. Unfortunately, that compatibility ended later in the process"), as well as how developers present themselves to publishers ("We thought it was all about making the best game in the world, but in reality it's all about making your publisher think you're making the best game in the world") - there's more information in a post-mortem Powerpoint presentation at Escape Factory's official site.

Comments

Re:In other words...

[tc]

I've worked on both sides of the house - as a developer as a publisher. Currently, I'm working for a publisher, doing technical management for third party developers. The bottom line is that it's all about balancing risks versus rewards. So, yes, it's not just about making a great game, you have to convince your publisher that you're not going to introduce so much risk that the business case doesn't make sense any more.

Now, that doesn't mean you can't do innovative and interesting projects. Those are marketing risks, to be sure, but the potential upside is huge (and senior management loves big potential upside). What gets developers killed far more often is not market risk, but production risk. In other words, the risk that they have a great idea but they're going to fuck up the execution in some way. And there are plenty of ways developers, especially inexperienced ones, can do that:

Technical: They have crappy processes and unproven technology which will lead them to slip dates and run over-budget. They might have difficulty shipping on the target platform (on a console this is completely fatal, and on a PC you lose big chunks of your target market if you have to make the minimum acceptable spec too high).

Design: They have a great 'big idea', but can't quite execute on the thousand little decisions along the way that make things work.

Management: They fail to schedule properly for key areas. It's amazing how many schedules I've seen from developers that just completely omit whole features that are in the design doc, oops. They have poor communication, both internally and externally.

Proving to the publisher that you don't represent too large of a risk in all of those areas is vital, no matter how good your game idea. Above all, be as transparent as possible with your publisher, especially if you're a relatively new developer, because if you won't let me see your processes, source-code or design docs, and won't let me talk to your people, then I'm just going make the default assumption that those things are fucked up. (You'd be amazed how many developers don't fully grok this point.)

Data East's Tattoo Assassins

[Luigi30]

Here's a bad concept gone even worse. Bob Gale (Back to the Future) came up with an idea and gave it to Data East's pinball division for turning into a game.

The story was that a bunch of people had magic tattoos that came alive and smashed people. A sub-par MK ripoff. But the story of how it came together was even more spectacular.

The designers were promised $20,000 each for finishing the game in 6 months. They ended up slapping something together fast, burning out within a few months. The team knew the game was utter shit, but only worked on it for the bonus. During playtesting, the playtesters also decided it was shit and played the pinball tables also being playtested... by that time the programmers knew it was shit, and were hoping the art would be really good, and the artists knew that it was shit and were hoping the programmers would come up with something really good.

They finished the game, half-assed, got their $20,000 checks, and quit the next day. The game was never released for obvious reasons. The existing prototypes were destroyed, except for two, one American version and one Japanese version.

That was the only video game designed by Data East. In the middle of it, they were bought out by SEGA.

Re:So the question becomes...

[Psychochild]

Is it better to just lie to the publisher?

Well, publishers aren't stupid. They're just more interested in getting the maximum return for investment regardless of other considerations. Ruthless? Yes. Stupid? Not in the slightest.

The biggest source of the publisher/developer rift, in my opinion, is the simple fact that the developer just wants to make a cool game and doesn't really want to be bothered by the business side of things. If I wanted to sweat the dollars and cents of a business, I would not have gone into game development. Business software consistently makes better and more constant returns on investment. I run a game company because I want to make cool games. (I've managed to bring my company to profitablility in only 2 years, so I'm not too shabby on the business side of things myself, but I would still rather focus more on making cool games!)

The publisher, on the other hand, expects you to be highly business savvy and will do whatever they can to take advantage of the developer. Ideally, the publishers should look at the relationship as a way to help the developer accomplish this goal. The publisher should look to fund developers with the right blend of innovation, experience, ability, and passion. Instead, they look for the developers they can get the best deal from, which doesn't always produce the best games.

Last week I attended the Game Developer's Conference in San Jose, CA. I attended a "Business Summit" at the GDC, where we talked about various problems with game development, and the developer/publisher relationship was, not surprisingly, a common topic for discussion. Many developers complained how antagonistic the relationship can be. A representative from a publisher responded to some of these concerns by stating, "I will not give any developer anything they do not ask for," meaning: the publisher will take any advantage over the developer they possibly can.

And, really, that sort of attitude is disgusting. While it is profitable in the short term, it encourages an attitude of "eating your young" which harms the long-term health of the industry. Publishers should really be looking to establish partnerships with developers in order to create quality games. The most notable game development studios are ones that have accumulated enough power to bargain with publishers as equals. Companies like Blizzard, id, or Valve are known for their quality games and work independent from the publishers for the most part (until they get acquired, then the founders leave ;). But, if you look at the history of these types of game companies, they worked independent from publishers initially. id is a great example: They got their start through shareware. It wasn't until DOOM that they hit the big time, and publishers were falling over themselves to put the game on the shelves. Now id could have any publisher they wanted publish their games because they've retained enough autonomy that they were never indebted to the publishers.

So, really, the opposite needs to happen. More truth needs to be exposed between the publisher and the developer. The publishers need to stop viewing developers as expendable resources, they need to start fostering long-term relationships with developers, and they need to encourage truthfulness. Unfortunately, the current model is so profitable in the short term that it's unlikely to change until something forces the balance of power to shift.

The closest thing we have to any change in the status quo is smaller developers creating niche games and selling the directly to the market, like my own company. But, really, it's not that glamorous. I have thick skin because I have to continuously hear how my game is "too old" or "too ugly" to play even though Meridian 59, all humility aside, is the best PvP experience you can get in any online RPG. Yet, a lot of people simply cannot get past production values and really appreciate the gameplay. And, hey, I'd love to have the prettyest grap