Mothers, Don't Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Game Developers | Hacker News Reader

Mothers, Don't Let Your Children Grow Up to Be Game Developers

playthisthing.com

38 pointskqr216 comments

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.

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.

"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...

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.

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.

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.

Aren't some games today (such as the Halo series) breaking all sorts of records for revenue? It seems the blockbuster model just arrived to video games.

The two aren't mutually exclusive. Note that right now the movie scene is more blockbuster than it's ever been, while at the same time the indie scene is blooming.

When lots of people focus on superexpensive, it means that a lot of talented people suddenly get interested in the cheap indie scene. Look at the games of Rod Humble, who used to work for Sony and is now doing some of the best stuff in the indie gaming world.

I have trouble buying that the technology is hitting a plateau. If that happens then what you will see a couple houses make a killing off blockbusters while the rest of the industry are making "safe" projects. But I wouldn't hold my breath on that either.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Couldn't have said it any better myself. I'm sick and tired of these millennials that want, want, want without the work, work, work.

All this "lifestyle" BS I keep hearing about lately is just a cop out excuse for lazy people masquerading under the idea that they are just working smarter — BULLSHIT. REAL entrepreneurs don’t see it as work, it is a compulsion that drives them. If you don't want to be at the top, get out of the way cause you're slowing everyone else down... And damn sure don't apply to work in a startup. The absolute last thing a startup needs are self-righteous millennials wasting time and therefore money.

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.

Speaking as an employee of several businesses (;D) I disagree. I've seen managers make unrealistic schedules all the time AND fail to deliver. This practice results in low morale, low work-quality and increased turnover.

Respectfully, your point is due to lack of proper execution, not the notion that very few amazing accomplishments are achieved by those who seek 8-5 work.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com