4 ms·

I'd argue that modern day EUSB etc. are what we see, precisely because they've eaten the corpses of the referenced failures. EA today isn't EA of the late-80s

by ethbr0 5y ago

I'd argue that modern day EUSB etc. are what we see, precisely because they've eaten the corpses of the referenced failures. EA today isn't EA of the late-80s / early-90s. It's essentially something named "EA" that managed to smartly buy assets of failed companies. The funding difficulties and cyclical nature of revenue is real, but I guess that's why you see a similar model evolve in movie production. Take a look through the developers during the early part of EA's history (for example): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_games:_1983%E2%80%931999 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_game... There were none that I could find that hadn't gone through this exact pattern: (1) be bought by larger publisher, (2) lose key creative talent, (3) close as an entity and have remaining employees folded into larger corporate teams. You'd think if average "big game publisher-developer" management were beneficial to developers, you wouldn't get subsequent failure so reliably.

vkou 5y ago
The reason they were bought by a larger publisher is either because the owners got their exit, or, more frequently, because when you live publisher-paycheck-to-publisher-paycheck, all it takes is one flop to sink your development studio. Your publisher then buys your carcass, and its IP and team for a song. I don't think you can blame the management, as much as you can blame the funding model. (And the funding model is such because banks aren't interested in lending money for speculative creative projects, and neither are VCs.) > You'd think if average "big game publisher-developer" management were beneficial to developers, you wouldn't get subsequent failure so reliably. I wouldn't say it's beneficial, but it's the only way that most of them can get the money to fund their projects.

by ethbr0 5y ago

vkou 5y ago

The reason they were bought by a larger publisher is either because the owners got their exit, or, more frequently, because when you live publisher-paycheck-to-publisher-paycheck, all it takes is one flop to sink your development studio. Your publisher then buys your carcass, and its IP and team for a song. I don't think you can blame the management, as much as you can blame the funding model. (And the funding model is such because banks aren't interested in lending money for speculative creative projects, and neither are VCs.) > You'd think if average "big game publisher-developer" management were beneficial to developers, you wouldn't get subsequent failure so reliably. I wouldn't say it's beneficial, but it's the only way that most of them can get the money to fund their projects.