5 ms·

This strikes me as a rather idealistic viewpoint. Let's say we wanted to adopt this stance. The world doesn't stop turning. How do you fill the year of gap you

This strikes me as a rather idealistic viewpoint. Let's say we wanted to adopt this stance. The world doesn't stop turning. How do you fill the year of gap you've now introduced? What do the quarterly financials for the next year look like? Is your plan to just tell all shareholders, "Our company plans to make $0 in the next year because we want to implement this practice which might make you more money in the long run - but no guarantees on that except that we'll definitely take longer to build"?

rsaesha 3y ago
Yes, exactly like that, but instead of using a sarcastic tone, use a matter of fact tone. "You want A game or you want THE game?" Maybe add a slide showing how much concentrated toward the very best game revenues are.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  But the finance people don't want THE game. They want A game that is ready to release that fits into their quarterly financial statements. Predictable cash flow has a lot of value. It's not just about knocking every opportunity out of the park. Companies absolutely DO NOT want TWO games ready to release at the same time because the marketing attempts will cannibalize each other. So, when one game takes longer to develop than expected, and a release slot opens up, another game must fill that slot, even at the cost of quality, because releasing multiple games at the same time is untenable. Blood, Sweat, and Pixels covers this in great detail: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234 https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbule...
pavel_lishin 3y ago
But these deadlines are all arbitrary. Game studios want to plan to release a game in X months; the commenter you're replying to wants them to plan to release a game in X + 12 months. Why not plan on releasing the game in X-6 months? Is their plan to tell shareholders "Our company plans to make $0 in the next 6 months because we want to implement this practice... etc?" A company can also stagger game releases; work on more than one game simultaneously, offset by 12 months or so. You still get a yearly - or whateverly - release cycle, but you avoid the burnout and the bad press of a rushed release.
- SeanAnderson 3y ago
  A company works on multiple games at the same time, yes. Some of those games are exploratory and have a low likelihood of seeing the light of day. Some are rehashes of proven formulas with good confidence that they'll be profitable. Something goes awry. The "known profitable" game is very much so behind schedule. An executive decision is made to give development another year. There is now a gap in the release schedule. Leadership shops around and talks to the other teams. They say, "If you can promise me that you can ship at this time then I can promise you your game will ship. If not, then I can't make any promises because our primary game is taking the launch slot a year from now and the world might be entirely different in two years." Those leading the less important game go back to their team with the news. They say, "Hey. We have a real opportunity here for this game to see the light of day, but we will need to make concessions to do so. Do you want to try for it?" Most sane teams respond by saying "Yes, we will make that work" because no creative wants to work on a game that fails to see the light of day. This results in a game being shipped in a state that is perceived as being rushed by consumers. The game was rushed, but there was never a guarantee that the game would release if not rushed. Is this an idyllic scenario? No, but it is a pretty good scenario compared to what could've happened.
brucethemoose2 3y ago
The answer is to have your cake and eat it, with Early Access. You get a stream of cash whenever you launch an even somewhat finished game. You get a mountain of early feedback and real world testing, without the negative PR. And then, when the game is ready, you do the full launch + marketing with (from what I can tell) basically no PR/hype penalty from being in early access, as its a new game as far as the storefronts are concerned. Maybe I am missing a big drawback, but it seems like such a no brainer. And it clearly works at any scale, see Rimworld (lone dev) and Baldurs Gate 3 (mega dev team), which coincidentally are among the most critically acclaimed games ever.
- giancarlostoro 3y ago
  I agree, this is the sweet spot. It's a shame early access is full of worse games. It's funny because BG3 had a lot cut off from the early access for a while, which is what I would suggest, cut out all the incomplete things, feature flag what isn't working reasonably well, and enable it once its ready, much easier with Early Access.
  - brucethemoose2 3y ago
    Yeah, the most successful early access campaigns are started when the game is "finished and playable," but not necessarily complete Rimworld was exactly like this too. It had a forum alpha, then a beta, then a polished early access release. The mod community was already raging before it even hit Steam. All this made the game that much more impactful when it hit EA and more features started rolling in.
JCharante 3y ago
imagine releasing a hollywood movie when there's only placeholder vfx because finishing the vfx will take another year

rsaesha 3y ago

Yes, exactly like that, but instead of using a sarcastic tone, use a matter of fact tone. "You want A game or you want THE game?" Maybe add a slide showing how much concentrated toward the very best game revenues are.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
But the finance people don't want THE game. They want A game that is ready to release that fits into their quarterly financial statements. Predictable cash flow has a lot of value. It's not just about knocking every opportunity out of the park. Companies absolutely DO NOT want TWO games ready to release at the same time because the marketing attempts will cannibalize each other. So, when one game takes longer to develop than expected, and a release slot opens up, another game must fill that slot, even at the cost of quality, because releasing multiple games at the same time is untenable. Blood, Sweat, and Pixels covers this in great detail: https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbulent/dp/0062651234 https://www.amazon.com/Blood-Sweat-Pixels-Triumphant-Turbule...

pavel_lishin 3y ago

But these deadlines are all arbitrary. Game studios want to plan to release a game in X months; the commenter you're replying to wants them to plan to release a game in X + 12 months. Why not plan on releasing the game in X-6 months? Is their plan to tell shareholders "Our company plans to make $0 in the next 6 months because we want to implement this practice... etc?" A company can also stagger game releases; work on more than one game simultaneously, offset by 12 months or so. You still get a yearly - or whateverly - release cycle, but you avoid the burnout and the bad press of a rushed release.

SeanAnderson 3y ago
A company works on multiple games at the same time, yes. Some of those games are exploratory and have a low likelihood of seeing the light of day. Some are rehashes of proven formulas with good confidence that they'll be profitable. Something goes awry. The "known profitable" game is very much so behind schedule. An executive decision is made to give development another year. There is now a gap in the release schedule. Leadership shops around and talks to the other teams. They say, "If you can promise me that you can ship at this time then I can promise you your game will ship. If not, then I can't make any promises because our primary game is taking the launch slot a year from now and the world might be entirely different in two years." Those leading the less important game go back to their team with the news. They say, "Hey. We have a real opportunity here for this game to see the light of day, but we will need to make concessions to do so. Do you want to try for it?" Most sane teams respond by saying "Yes, we will make that work" because no creative wants to work on a game that fails to see the light of day. This results in a game being shipped in a state that is perceived as being rushed by consumers. The game was rushed, but there was never a guarantee that the game would release if not rushed. Is this an idyllic scenario? No, but it is a pretty good scenario compared to what could've happened.

brucethemoose2 3y ago

The answer is to have your cake and eat it, with Early Access. You get a stream of cash whenever you launch an even somewhat finished game. You get a mountain of early feedback and real world testing, without the negative PR. And then, when the game is ready, you do the full launch + marketing with (from what I can tell) basically no PR/hype penalty from being in early access, as its a new game as far as the storefronts are concerned. Maybe I am missing a big drawback, but it seems like such a no brainer. And it clearly works at any scale, see Rimworld (lone dev) and Baldurs Gate 3 (mega dev team), which coincidentally are among the most critically acclaimed games ever.

giancarlostoro 3y ago
I agree, this is the sweet spot. It's a shame early access is full of worse games. It's funny because BG3 had a lot cut off from the early access for a while, which is what I would suggest, cut out all the incomplete things, feature flag what isn't working reasonably well, and enable it once its ready, much easier with Early Access.
- brucethemoose2 3y ago
  Yeah, the most successful early access campaigns are started when the game is "finished and playable," but not necessarily complete Rimworld was exactly like this too. It had a forum alpha, then a beta, then a polished early access release. The mod community was already raging before it even hit Steam. All this made the game that much more impactful when it hit EA and more features started rolling in.

JCharante 3y ago

imagine releasing a hollywood movie when there's only placeholder vfx because finishing the vfx will take another year