3 ms·

"Layoffs aren't a problem." They are _the_ problem. See Dead Space's decline until it was given the ax. See the constant eb and tide of Need for Speed, as they

"Layoffs aren't a problem." They are _the_ problem. See Dead Space's decline until it was given the ax. See the constant eb and tide of Need for Speed, as they play developer hot potato with the title. See the rambling incoherent mess that are Medal of Honor and Battlefield, the original marquee warfare titles, that don't even know what kind of game they want to try to imitate anymore because they forgot what they were. In my mind and experience, these can all be directly attributed to EA's policy of killing everyone at the end of the dev cycle. It's like every sequel is started from scratch, when you have to spin the new team up every time. But that's ok, because "when they get older and can't stand more this" they'll move on, right? You mean six to twenty-four months older, depending on when they joined the project. If they're lucky, they can parlay that experience in to signing on with another developer. But the constant layoffs mean that not only is your pool of competition for the job full of young bucks fresh out of Guildhall and Full Sail, but also full of desperate people just like you. People who felt safe enough in their so called tenure to dare to do things like try to start families or own homes, to live a life to accompany that dream. Lay offs and the ideal of living the dream of games are creating an over-saturation in the market that is going to have some dire consequences down the road. We already see this today in real time, as the money continues to consolidate at the top, and developers are left dead in the ditch. Terminal Reality. Lucas Arts. Vigil. Time Gate. Studios with long rich histories, full of talented people who made a lot of great games, many of whom I knew... gone. Stand here and tell me lay offs are not a problem, when I've had to listen to their pleas of what they're going to do now with no job, and a baby on the way. When another great game is taken from the world, because the focus groups didn't respond the right way, so you all can line up at the unemployment line. Stories and worlds we'll never be able to enjoy, because someone decided that they had enough of trying to live this way, and the dream died with their career. Explain to me how that is not going to have a long and damaging impact on this industry, when the people who make fun aren't having fun anymore.

ekianjo 12y ago
> Explain to me how that is not going to have a long and damaging impact on this industry, when the people who make fun aren't having fun anymore. You always have the option to go indie if you can't stand the larger industry practices. But then you realize the benefits of being an employee even if you get laid off once in a while. Being Indie is even harder, and only a very small fraction of indie devs actually make money.
- bittermang 12y ago
  And, just like undertaking a startup is not for everyone, going indie is not an option for many people coming from the AAA world. They may not have all of the pieces among themselves and their associates to actually ship something, let alone something that will sell.
  - ekianjo 12y ago
    Certainly. But even if you don't want to ship stuff on your own, you can become a freelancer and become a consultant for certain aspects of game design. I've met a number of people who ended up doing that.
watwut 12y ago
"Being Indie is even harder, and only a very small fraction of indie devs actually make money." Only a fraction of big games makes money. Big game studios are falling right and left. The thing is, if you can develop games, you can develop other things too - and those jobs invariably offer much better conditions and pay.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  > The thing is, if you can develop games, you can develop other things too - and those jobs invariably offer much better conditions and pay. Yeah, but I guess you miss something important: people make games because they enjoy doing that instead of social apps or server-side applications. And the fun factor also has value that is not always related to how much you make. I've seen the same thing in other industries: people with high tech skills quitting and going to a complete different occupation where they actually make less money, just because they see it as a more worthwhile pursuit.
ekianjo 12y ago
> Terminal Reality. Lucas Arts. Vigil. Time Gate. Studios with long rich histories, full of talented people who made a lot of great games, many of whom I knew... gone. To be fair, studios like Lucas Arts were long dead before they closed their doors. They had not made anything I would call remotely good in 10 years or so. I think you are painting a too bright a picture as well. You seem to hint that one great time will always make great games, but even back in the 80s and 90s where game devs were only working in small teams, you could see them going from a great title to a meh one. There's always ups and down and it's not just because of the MAB guys at the top, but simply because there's no "formula" to guarantee that people will have fun with your game, every single time you create a new one. Most sequels are never on par with the first title because they are not 'new' anymore to the eyes of the gamer. Sometimes they fare better than the original, but mostly less, and it's natural that people get bored when playing the same stuff over and over again. It's actually good to see some IPs die so that we can hopefully see new stuff coming out.
- bittermang 12y ago
  I paint a bright picture, because as has been pointed out, it's the dream. It was mine in the third grade. I had decided at that young age that I had spent so much time already playing games, that I should work toward that industry. I should give something back. I paint a bright picture because despite it all, I still have heart. I pick on EA for their sequels specifically, because I can smell the stink on the disc. I'm a fan of Need for Speed. But I know I'm taking a gamble on each one I buy, because I don't know what corners EA decided to cut this time. It's not simply a case of the same thing being boring the second time around, the game is literally weaker than the predecessor. Skate is another example of an awesome game that shook up the skateboarding genre, and put Tony Hawk on the ropes. But sequels should improve in some way, not just better graphics, but better features, tighter gameplay. Skate and Need for Speed go backwards in their sequels. You can play the games side by side, and watch the gameplay get worse. Things that worked in the last game are now mysteriously broken, because the new dev team wasn't there the first time around. They don't understand or own the product in the way the original team did. By the time (if) they make it to the third game, it's a copy of a copy. Games can be a lot like television shows, in that they may have an over arching story that spans across the series. And much like a television show can lag in the ratings and get cancelled, games with a story to tell wind up never getting a proper ending. That is the case with Dead Space, a deeply engrossing world that just kinda... ends. No real resolutions to tie up the plot. As a fan, over time you may become worried to invest in EA titles, because you know they're eventually going to be left to die, with no real ending. Why engross yourself in a world that you know is just going to disappear? Why watch a drama that is just going to end on a cliffhanger, and never get a 4th season to wrap it up? Would you read a book that just stopped in the middle of the page, paragraph, or sentence?

ekianjo 12y ago

> Explain to me how that is not going to have a long and damaging impact on this industry, when the people who make fun aren't having fun anymore. You always have the option to go indie if you can't stand the larger industry practices. But then you realize the benefits of being an employee even if you get laid off once in a while. Being Indie is even harder, and only a very small fraction of indie devs actually make money.

bittermang 12y ago
And, just like undertaking a startup is not for everyone, going indie is not an option for many people coming from the AAA world. They may not have all of the pieces among themselves and their associates to actually ship something, let alone something that will sell.
- ekianjo 12y ago
  Certainly. But even if you don't want to ship stuff on your own, you can become a freelancer and become a consultant for certain aspects of game design. I've met a number of people who ended up doing that.

watwut 12y ago

"Being Indie is even harder, and only a very small fraction of indie devs actually make money." Only a fraction of big games makes money. Big game studios are falling right and left. The thing is, if you can develop games, you can develop other things too - and those jobs invariably offer much better conditions and pay.

ekianjo 12y ago
> The thing is, if you can develop games, you can develop other things too - and those jobs invariably offer much better conditions and pay. Yeah, but I guess you miss something important: people make games because they enjoy doing that instead of social apps or server-side applications. And the fun factor also has value that is not always related to how much you make. I've seen the same thing in other industries: people with high tech skills quitting and going to a complete different occupation where they actually make less money, just because they see it as a more worthwhile pursuit.

ekianjo 12y ago

> Terminal Reality. Lucas Arts. Vigil. Time Gate. Studios with long rich histories, full of talented people who made a lot of great games, many of whom I knew... gone. To be fair, studios like Lucas Arts were long dead before they closed their doors. They had not made anything I would call remotely good in 10 years or so. I think you are painting a too bright a picture as well. You seem to hint that one great time will always make great games, but even back in the 80s and 90s where game devs were only working in small teams, you could see them going from a great title to a meh one. There's always ups and down and it's not just because of the MAB guys at the top, but simply because there's no "formula" to guarantee that people will have fun with your game, every single time you create a new one. Most sequels are never on par with the first title because they are not 'new' anymore to the eyes of the gamer. Sometimes they fare better than the original, but mostly less, and it's natural that people get bored when playing the same stuff over and over again. It's actually good to see some IPs die so that we can hopefully see new stuff coming out.

bittermang 12y ago
I paint a bright picture, because as has been pointed out, it's the dream. It was mine in the third grade. I had decided at that young age that I had spent so much time already playing games, that I should work toward that industry. I should give something back. I paint a bright picture because despite it all, I still have heart. I pick on EA for their sequels specifically, because I can smell the stink on the disc. I'm a fan of Need for Speed. But I know I'm taking a gamble on each one I buy, because I don't know what corners EA decided to cut this time. It's not simply a case of the same thing being boring the second time around, the game is literally weaker than the predecessor. Skate is another example of an awesome game that shook up the skateboarding genre, and put Tony Hawk on the ropes. But sequels should improve in some way, not just better graphics, but better features, tighter gameplay. Skate and Need for Speed go backwards in their sequels. You can play the games side by side, and watch the gameplay get worse. Things that worked in the last game are now mysteriously broken, because the new dev team wasn't there the first time around. They don't understand or own the product in the way the original team did. By the time (if) they make it to the third game, it's a copy of a copy. Games can be a lot like television shows, in that they may have an over arching story that spans across the series. And much like a television show can lag in the ratings and get cancelled, games with a story to tell wind up never getting a proper ending. That is the case with Dead Space, a deeply engrossing world that just kinda... ends. No real resolutions to tie up the plot. As a fan, over time you may become worried to invest in EA titles, because you know they're eventually going to be left to die, with no real ending. Why engross yourself in a world that you know is just going to disappear? Why watch a drama that is just going to end on a cliffhanger, and never get a 4th season to wrap it up? Would you read a book that just stopped in the middle of the page, paragraph, or sentence?