4 ms·

> mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership. My impression was this was the game industry in general. Some of the management credentials / experience I'v

by ethbr1 2y ago

> mostly squandered it due to terrible leadership. My impression was this was the game industry in general. Some of the management credentials / experience I've seen. Specifically, lack thereof. Just because it's a creative endeavor shouldn't excuse all norms of effective management. (*cough* chrisroberts *cough*)

jsheard 2y ago
Maybe so, but some leadership is more terrible than others. In the five or so years that Amazon has been seriously trying to do AAA games they've cancelled four of them, launched a live service game only to put it back into closed beta when it flopped and then killed it outright, and now have six active projects in varying degrees of development hell with no release windows. The few games they have managed to actually ship are mid at best. They also spent god knows how much money on a no-strings-attached CryEngine license to use as a basis of their own in-house fork, which was such a flop internally that they ended up just open sourcing it to zero fanfare. I don't think anyone is using it, even for free.
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  It looks like they paid between 50 and 70 million. Not much for a company like Amazon. But yes, they totally failed in this area. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-is-amazon-lumberyard-right-for-you https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-i...
- withinboredom 2y ago
  Star Citizen is still using it.
  - lentil_soup 2y ago
    Not really, it's just a heavily modified version of CryEngine
majormajor 2y ago
Games run a high risk of "we ran this project very well and the game still ended up boring as hell." This is not unheard of outside of games - plenty of failed launch SAAS or social or whatever software - but it's particularly crucial in entertainment since "fun" will make people tolerate a LOT of other issues with your software. Beyond "maybe making a huge investment in a creative space hits-driven-business is not a wise move", the actual project leadership may or may not have been any good here. Might just be that they didn't make something fun and compelling enough, or that they just didn't find enough players, or that the marketing fit isn't right for "games with Netflix subscription." You can certainly kill an entertainment project with terrible management, but anything more than "adequate" isn't likely to give you any extra sparks of inspiration. (Hell, sometimes some chaos might be good for that.)
- feoren 2y ago
  > the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev floor should know whether the game is fun or not, and which parts are the most fun and most boring. Often when games end up bland and boring, you find out that devs have been raising this alarm for a year, but management -- who have never played video games and probably think they're stupid -- ignored them in favor of their own ideas. It's the same problem as not talking to your clients when writing any software. The second problem can be summed up thusly[1]: "I worked two years of overtime straight on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the first Sparkle Pony horse in World of Warcraft. A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than Starcraft 2". -- Jason Hall, former Blizzard employee. Starcraft 2 was a fun game, well-crafted with love. It made less money than a single cosmetic microtransaction in WoW. Why would game companies waste their time making fun games? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY
  - plorkyeran 2y ago
    Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.

by ethbr1 2y ago

jsheard 2y ago

Maybe so, but some leadership is more terrible than others. In the five or so years that Amazon has been seriously trying to do AAA games they've cancelled four of them, launched a live service game only to put it back into closed beta when it flopped and then killed it outright, and now have six active projects in varying degrees of development hell with no release windows. The few games they have managed to actually ship are mid at best. They also spent god knows how much money on a no-strings-attached CryEngine license to use as a basis of their own in-house fork, which was such a flop internally that they ended up just open sourcing it to zero fanfare. I don't think anyone is using it, even for free.

blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
It looks like they paid between 50 and 70 million. Not much for a company like Amazon. But yes, they totally failed in this area. https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-is-amazon-lumberyard-right-for-you https://www.gamesindustry.biz/what-is-the-best-game-engine-i...
withinboredom 2y ago
Star Citizen is still using it.
- lentil_soup 2y ago
  Not really, it's just a heavily modified version of CryEngine

majormajor 2y ago

Games run a high risk of "we ran this project very well and the game still ended up boring as hell." This is not unheard of outside of games - plenty of failed launch SAAS or social or whatever software - but it's particularly crucial in entertainment since "fun" will make people tolerate a LOT of other issues with your software. Beyond "maybe making a huge investment in a creative space hits-driven-business is not a wise move", the actual project leadership may or may not have been any good here. Might just be that they didn't make something fun and compelling enough, or that they just didn't find enough players, or that the marketing fit isn't right for "games with Netflix subscription." You can certainly kill an entertainment project with terrible management, but anything more than "adequate" isn't likely to give you any extra sparks of inspiration. (Hell, sometimes some chaos might be good for that.)

feoren 2y ago
> the game still ended up boring as hell There are two problems here. One is when people haven't played the game enough during development. Everyone on the dev floor should know whether the game is fun or not, and which parts are the most fun and most boring. Often when games end up bland and boring, you find out that devs have been raising this alarm for a year, but management -- who have never played video games and probably think they're stupid -- ignored them in favor of their own ideas. It's the same problem as not talking to your clients when writing any software. The second problem can be summed up thusly[1]: "I worked two years of overtime straight on Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty. Starcraft 2: Wings of Liberty made less money than the first Sparkle Pony horse in World of Warcraft. A $15 microtransaction horse made more money than Starcraft 2". -- Jason Hall, former Blizzard employee. Starcraft 2 was a fun game, well-crafted with love. It made less money than a single cosmetic microtransaction in WoW. Why would game companies waste their time making fun games? [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHZru-6M8BY
- plorkyeran 2y ago
  Jason Hall's claim there was very incorrect and he later walked it back. People tried very hard to find a context in which was true and the best anyone could come up with was that the horse had higher day one profits by virtue of that it cost basically nothing to make and SC2 wasn't profitable off preorders alone.