Slashdot Mirror
How Mission Creep Killed a Gaming Studio
Nerval's Lobster writes: Over at Kotaku, there's an interesting story about the reported demise of Darkside Game Studios, a game-development firm that thought it finally had a shot at the big time only to collapse once its project requirements spun out of control. Darkside got a chance to show off its own stuff with a proposed remake of Phantom Dust, an action-strategy game that became something of a cult favorite. Microsoft, which offered Darkside the budget to make the game, had a very specific list of requirements for the actual gameplay. The problem, as Kotaku describes, is those requirements shifted after the project was well underway. Darkside needed more developers, artists, and other skilled tech pros to finish the game with its expanded requirements, but (anonymous sources claimed) Microsoft refused to offer up more money to actually hire the necessary people. As a result, the game's development imploded, reportedly followed by the studio. What's the lesson in all this? It's one of the oldest in the book: Escalating and unanticipated requirements, especially without added budget to meet those requirements, can have devastating effects on both a project and the larger software company.
So the real story is that bad contracts killed a gaming studio?
What idiots signed a contract allowing Microsoft to unilaterally change requirements mid-project with no increase in budget?
Sounds like it truly is one of "the oldest ones in the book": Working with Microsoft is a bad idea.
Haven't we heard of multiple companies being screwed in partnerships with them over the years (long before Nokia)?
Agreed. I've been writing software for 32 years, and "We've completely changed your requirements, but that shouldn't affect your schedule or your budget any!" happens all the time. The point is, you have to push back. Tell them exactly what every change is going to cost (padded heavily). Unless they agree to add time and money to the project, then just deliver the originally agreed to project. Don't let people make unilateral changes in the contract after it is signed, unless you actually like working on money-losing projects!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
The point is, you have to push back.
We love to make fun of the useless "suits". But that's a situation where you need good executive management and good lawyers. They need to negotiate good contracts up front, and then make sure the contracts are abided by.
And it's also a situation in which you can get completely and utterly fucked by the people in suits who work in sales.
Many of us have seen what happens when that oily salesguy you'd like to to kick sells something which is complete fiction, and that it is now someone else's problem. His check clears, he gets a new car and a vacation, and everyone else is stuck building a fucking unicorn.
Sometimes, in small companies or with overly greedy salespeople they can sell the farm for a couple of magic beans.
And then no amount of effort is going to make it possible to keep up with an unrealistic client with a gold-plated sales contract which doesn't impose penalties for them failing to stick with a coherent design.
Sometimes, it is the suits who get you into this kind of trouble, and then they double down until there's nothing left.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I work as a mechanical engineer, in the building industry (HVAC) and while this is also quite normal, the word that gets thrown around is variation, obviously to the contract.
Reading the article, particularly between the lines, it appears that the problem wasn't really with the studio; they were trying to get more money out of MS, but MS just decided to kill the project rather than have a cost blowout. While mission creep did kill the game, the studio didn't plan any contingency or mitigation for a cancellation (or more likely it was just sack everyone).
Many of us have seen what happens when that oily salesguy you'd like to to kick sells something which is complete fiction, and that it is now someone else's problem. His check clears, he gets a new car and a vacation, and everyone else is stuck building a fucking unicorn.
Scott Adams summed it up nicely.
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
Dilbert cartoons are spot-on about a third of the time.
The rest are understatements.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."