The Great Video Game Business and Financial (In)Stability Thread

garion333 wrote:

The mess of Reforged is believed to be in part because it was the classic team at Blizzard who couldn't hit deadlines. It was rushed out. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard's management (ie. the Activision financial folks) gave em a timeline, said 'hit it', which they missed, and delivered a sh*t product, which gave them the impetus to can the team.

I'm rather shocked by how quick you are to blame the team and exonerate management. Project failures are never the result of the low level employees. Reforged was a failure due to unrealistic expectations put upon them by management.

Blizzard Absorbs Activision Studio After Dismantling Classic Games Team - By Jason Schreier

Internal Blizzard documents reviewed by Bloomberg pinpointed the game’s failures on poor planning, miscommunication and a rushed release due to financial pressure from management, among other factors. For example, Blizzard announced the game in November 2018 and began taking pre-orders for 2019 without informing most of the development team beforehand, according to several people who worked on Warcraft III: Reforged.

"They remastered Starcraft already and that was pretty straightforward. Also this time they're going to rework levels and update gameplay. What do you mean this one won't be done as quickly?"

Rat Boy wrote:

Anyone else starting to think Reddit might be more dangerous than Twitter and Facebook?

Nah. Reddit has the problem that people can quickly and easily create super focused communities with largely anonymous users. For most people, that's like, a nice specialty news aggregator on rose gardens or something. But it also makes it easy to create the /r/RatBoymustbedefenestrated subreddit and use it as an organizing tool.

But it's not inherently radicalizing in the way that Facebook or especially Youtube is where it feeds you more and more propaganda the more you engage with it. It's a problem of self-moderation, which reddit has reluctantly been doing for much longer than the other social media platforms.

Reddit's "algorithm" is based largely on user voting. So they at least know how it works and can easily tweak things based on voting patterns and where the votes come from. Further, it's much easier for Reddit users to control what they see in their feed than, say, Facebook or YouTube.

Any radicalization coming from Reddit is more than likely self-selected. Unfortunately, there is more than enough of that to go around. And Reddit itself has perpetuated it with their obsessive devotion to free expression.

Djinn wrote:
garion333 wrote:

The mess of Reforged is believed to be in part because it was the classic team at Blizzard who couldn't hit deadlines. It was rushed out. I wouldn't be surprised if Blizzard's management (ie. the Activision financial folks) gave em a timeline, said 'hit it', which they missed, and delivered a sh*t product, which gave them the impetus to can the team.

I'm rather shocked by how quick you are to blame the team and exonerate management. Project failures are never the result of the low level employees. Reforged was a failure due to unrealistic expectations put upon them by management.

Blizzard Absorbs Activision Studio After Dismantling Classic Games Team - By Jason Schreier

Internal Blizzard documents reviewed by Bloomberg pinpointed the game’s failures on poor planning, miscommunication and a rushed release due to financial pressure from management, among other factors. For example, Blizzard announced the game in November 2018 and began taking pre-orders for 2019 without informing most of the development team beforehand, according to several people who worked on Warcraft III: Reforged.

I meant that partially as a knock against Blizzard's classic teams who do move slow and used to put out products that were worth the wait, but mostly as a knock against management trying to get them to fail in a short time so they could sh*t can the team.

Activision's money suits took over years ago and now have achieved their goal: Use Blizzard's name and what's left of their skilled employees to wring the last bit of good will from folks (ie. $$) before the name is forever tarnished and made a butt of jokes (see: Guitar Hero, Skylanders).

As soon as they annualized Overwatch and totally failed to capture any kind of zeitgeist with that game, I knew the jig was up at Blizzard, or should I say Activision dancing in Blizzard's skin suit! They finally pulled off their plan to crush the studio after twelve long years.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

As soon as they annualized Overwatch and totally failed to capture any kind of zeitgeist with that game, I knew the jig was up at Blizzard, or should I say Activision dancing in Blizzard's skin suit! They finally pulled off their plan to crush the studio after twelve long years.

The proof is in the Schreier tear down pieces, not the pudding!

It did strike me as odd that we went into a “Activision poops out the deflated husk of an acquired studio” bent when the studio in question operated as itself for 15 years. The other incongruity here is that this is Vicarious Visions, hardly a studio with Bioware’s original pedigree pre-EA. I loved the Game Boy Color port of Vigilante 8 as much as the next person, but y’know.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

As soon as they annualized Overwatch and totally failed to capture any kind of zeitgeist with that game, I knew the jig was up at Blizzard, or should I say Activision dancing in Blizzard's skin suit! They finally pulled off their plan to crush the studio after twelve long years.

Activision could really learn a thing or two from EA on how to properly drain the soul of an acquired company, and grind it to dust.

Maybe when they announce their new sci-fi looter shooter Dynasty: Moon Wizards.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

As soon as they annualized Overwatch and totally failed to capture any kind of zeitgeist with that game, I knew the jig was up at Blizzard, or should I say Activision dancing in Blizzard's skin suit! They finally pulled off their plan to crush the studio after twelve long years.

Annualized? We're still waiting for 2 to come out I wouldn't consider 5+ years as annualization.

They totally annualized Overwatch just like they did with Diablo and Starcraft!

Blind_Evil wrote:

It did strike me as odd that we went into a “Activision poops out the deflated husk of an acquired studio” bent when the studio in question operated as itself for 15 years. The other incongruity here is that this is Vicarious Visions, hardly a studio with Bioware’s original pedigree pre-EA. I loved the Game Boy Color port of Vigilante 8 as much as the next person, but y’know.

I wouldn't say "operated as itself". They've basically been a ports company and assistant on getting Activision's biggest titles out the door. Not to dismiss what you're saying, though. It's not like Vicarious Visions is known for... well, anything original that I can come up with. I tried to think of a game they worked on in the past and Raven's M-Rated Wolverine game came to mind.

I do think it's kind of crappy, but in the realm that they don't get to make their own original games. Instead, they're forced to work on Blizzard's, much like Swingin' Ape Studios was swallowed up to make World of Warcraft expansions while Metal Arms falls into obscurity.

Whew, this thread can be confusing. At the top it's "support the little guy" but then it turns into "Kotick is alright". I just don't know whose side to be on anymore!

ccesarano wrote:

I do think it's kind of crappy, but in the realm that they don't get to make their own original games. Instead, they're forced to work on Blizzard's, much like Swingin' Ape Studios was swallowed up to make World of Warcraft expansions while Metal Arms falls into obscurity.

Its important to note that every Developer wants to always "make their own original games" is a bit of an idealistic view of game development. I guarantee you the dev teams, not just "management" that make Madden or NBA 2K or Call of Duty or whatever annual titles are happy cashing their annual bonus checks. If given the choice between the guaranteed money from an annualized title to pay themselves and their employees and steadily grow their business or to take a chance on a brand new IP that could take 5 years and possibly fail and force difficult decisions, I wouldn't be surprised if half the devs asked would take the former.

ccesarano wrote:

I do think it's kind of crappy, but in the realm that they don't get to make their own original games. Instead, they're forced to work on Blizzard's, much like Swingin' Ape Studios was swallowed up to make World of Warcraft expansions while Metal Arms falls into obscurity.

Slight aside - the fact that I, lifelong gaming enthusiast, had to turn to Wikipedia to find out what Metal Arms is, means it did not fall into obscurity. It was born there.

ClockworkHouse wrote:

As soon as they annualized Overwatch and totally failed to capture any kind of zeitgeist with that game, I knew the jig was up at Blizzard, or should I say Activision dancing in Blizzard's skin suit! They finally pulled off their plan to crush the studio after twelve long years.

This is a masterpiece.

Carlbear95 wrote:

Its important to note that every Developer wants to always "make their own original games" is a bit of an idealistic view of game development. I guarantee you the dev teams, not just "management" that make Madden or NBA 2K or Call of Duty or whatever annual titles are happy cashing their annual bonus checks. If given the choice between the guaranteed money from an annualized title to pay themselves and their employees and steadily grow their business or to take a chance on a brand new IP that could take 5 years and possibly fail and force difficult decisions, I wouldn't be surprised if half the devs asked would take the former.

This is assuming those teams aren't worked to death annually themselves. It's one thing to kill yourself during crunch for a project you believe in. It's another to kill yourself for a product you have no passion for. Not that I want to drag this into a discussion on crunch itself.

It's sort of like how some television actors, before "prestige TV" became a big deal, stated they preferred television over film because it was steady work. Film was far more of a gamble, whereas the structure of television was to (hopefully) have multiple seasons. Or maybe this comparison doesn't work at all. In the end, it depends on what the work-life balance was at Vicarious Visions.

Though I imagine for many of them, the opportunity to make Tony Hawk not suck again was certainly something to be passionate about, and from what I've seen they were very clever in knowing how to update the game while putting in small quality-of-life improvements and adjustments.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Slight aside - the fact that I, lifelong gaming enthusiast, had to turn to Wikipedia to find out what Metal Arms is, means it did not fall into obscurity. It was born there.

Such is the way of my taste.

Blind_Evil wrote:

Slight aside - the fact that I, lifelong gaming enthusiast, had to turn to Wikipedia to find out what Metal Arms is, means it did not fall into obscurity. It was born there.

As a lifelong gaming enthusiast, the "name that game" thread has taught me that there are a ton of modest hits that defined somebody's childhood without my ever hearing of them...

fenomas wrote:
Blind_Evil wrote:

Slight aside - the fact that I, lifelong gaming enthusiast, had to turn to Wikipedia to find out what Metal Arms is, means it did not fall into obscurity. It was born there.

As a lifelong gaming enthusiast, the "name that game" thread has taught me that there are a ton of modest hits that defined somebody's childhood without my ever hearing of them...

Even so, I don't think Metal Arms ever showed up in that thread.

Sure it did. It's that famous Mortal Kombat spinoff game about Jax, right?

Oh, right, the crossover between MK and Wild Arms, duh!

Breath of the Wild Arms?

ccesarano wrote:

It's sort of like how some television actors, before "prestige TV" became a big deal, stated they preferred television over film because it was steady work. Film was far more of a gamble, whereas the structure of television was to (hopefully) have multiple seasons. Or maybe this comparison doesn't work at all. In the end, it depends on what the work-life balance was at Vicarious Visions.

The comparison is fair, but the idea that "the developer" (meaning the company) is an actor is not accurate. A game developer just like a TV or movie production is made up of hundreds of people, only a tiny handful of whom are the equivalent of the lead actor or director that has the freedom and privilege to exercise their creativity. All of the names after the first 30 seconds of the credits crawl are the developer... the equivalents of the gaffer, best boy, key grip, dolly operator 2. Unlike in film though where most of these are contractors, the UI Artist 3, AI programmer 1, weapons systems designer 4, are often full time employees, under the care of some "management" whether studio or publisher. So while Tom Hanks I'm sure is a great and generous guy, once the movie is done, he doesn't need to worry about how Assistant to the Gaffer #2 is going to get their next paycheck, the leads of a game developer do.

Point is, simply assuming that when news like Blizzard/Vicarious Visions hits that its always just some horrible one-sided corporate plot to stifle the creative vision of a company full of geniuses is just a broad generalization that usually isn't true. For a company that has survived for 15 years under Activision that means they're doing something right, not wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if their own managers had some input and say in how that relationship was going to change. Did they ask every single employee at VV for their approval? Of course not. Is every employee happy? Probably not, but in the games industry there aren't that many sure bets... and whether you like them or not... Blizzard franchises tend to be pretty successful and will keep the lights on. For a lot of folks removing that stress and uncertainty of the future is a big deal, and a lot more important than having their name on a marquis.

fangblackbone wrote:

Breath of the Wild Arms?

The Outer Wild Arms.

Jonman wrote:
fangblackbone wrote:

Breath of the Wild Arms?

The Outer Wild Arms.

Wild ARMA.

Carlbear95 wrote:

The comparison is fair, but the idea that "the developer" (meaning the company) is an actor is not accurate. A game developer just like a TV or movie production is made up of hundreds of people, only a tiny handful of whom are the equivalent of the lead actor or director that has the freedom and privilege to exercise their creativity. All of the names after the first 30 seconds of the credits crawl are the developer... the equivalents of the gaffer, best boy, key grip, dolly operator 2. Unlike in film though where most of these are contractors, the UI Artist 3, AI programmer 1, weapons systems designer 4, are often full time employees, under the care of some "management" whether studio or publisher. So while Tom Hanks I'm sure is a great and generous guy, once the movie is done, he doesn't need to worry about how Assistant to the Gaffer #2 is going to get their next paycheck, the leads of a game developer do.

I think you took this point of the comparison a bit too literally. The comparison was more to how the individual game developer would feel towards having steady work. In other words, sure, all you do is ports, but it's better than your other friends at other studios who just got laid off because their game got an 80 on Metacritic rather than an 85, or whose team in the studio had their pitch rejected and therefore who is gonna get let go for redundancy while focusing on the other team's project that got accepted and funded.

There's advantages and disadvantages, and it all comes down to that person's feelings and life.

Point is, simply assuming that when news like Blizzard/Vicarious Visions hits that its always just some horrible one-sided corporate plot to stifle the creative vision of a company full of geniuses is just a broad generalization that usually isn't true. For a company that has survived for 15 years under Activision that means they're doing something right, not wrong, and I wouldn't be surprised if their own managers had some input and say in how that relationship was going to change. Did they ask every single employee at VV for their approval? Of course not. Is every employee happy? Probably not, but in the games industry there aren't that many sure bets... and whether you like them or not... Blizzard franchises tend to be pretty successful and will keep the lights on. For a lot of folks removing that stress and uncertainty of the future is a big deal, and a lot more important than having their name on a marquis.

This is a fair point. A whole bunch of those employees could be hyped about the opportunity to work on Blizzard games.

ccesarano wrote:

I think you took this point of the comparison a bit too literally. The comparison was more to how the individual game developer would feel towards having steady work. In other words, sure, all you do is ports, but it's better than your other friends at other studios who just got laid off because their game got an 80 on Metacritic rather than an 85, or whose team in the studio had their pitch rejected and therefore who is gonna get let go for redundancy while focusing on the other team's project that got accepted and funded.

There's advantages and disadvantages, and it all comes down to that person's feelings and life.

Got it.. yeah I think we're actually on the same page. I generally like to try to dispel the notion that all game developers (whether its a collective company or an individual) are all just these creative types (the actor comparison I mentioned) who are just being beaten down by 'the man' all the time. That they just want artistic freedom to only create games us game players want, and care little for the material things like money that the rest of us mortals covet.

At the end of the day, for most working at a game developer is just a job... sure its probably more interesting than 100 other jobs out there, but the individuals are the same people that just want to do their job and go home. They want to get their paycheck every two weeks, and take care of their families just like anyone else. Working on Hades or Last of Us is awesome.. but there are a lot more folks out there working on the next Candy Crush level or standing up more servers for Overwatch, and they're probably pretty happy too with their situation and consumers shouldn't just assume they are just miserable beings being held against their will by Actiblizzard to just keep milking the monetization.

Amazon Can Make Just About Anything—Except a Good Video Game

Great article from Jason Schreier and Priya Anand. The whole thing is worth a read, but here are a few choice lines:

As head of the games division, Frazzini has acquired established development studios and pushed the company to spend nearly $1 billion for the live video streaming website Twitch. Frazzini recruited some of the top names in the video game industry, including creators of the critically acclaimed franchises EverQuest and Portal, as well as executives from Electronic Arts Inc. and other big publishers.

Then, according to numerous current and former employees of Frazzini’s game studios, he ignored much of their advice. He frequently told staff that every Amazon game needed to be a “billion-dollar franchise” and then understaffed the projects, they say. Instead of using industry-standard development tools, Frazzini insisted Amazon build its own, which might have saved the company money if the software ever worked properly. Executives under Frazzini initially rejected charges that New World, an Amazon game that would ask players to colonize a mythical land and murder inhabitants who bear a striking resemblance to Native Americans, was racist. They relented after Amazon hired a tribal consultant who found that the portrayal was indeed offensive, say two people who worked on the project.

At first, new recruits thought they were entering some sort of fantasy land. Many were paid double the market rate of other game makers in the area, on top of lucrative packages of Amazon stock that just kept rising in value. Teams had deadlines, but they proved to be flexible, and overtime requests were infrequent, more than a dozen former employees say.

One aspect of working at Amazon felt similar to traditional game companies. The studios cultivated a “bro culture” in which women often weren’t given the same opportunities as men, former employees say. Four female game developers say their worst experiences of sexism in the industry were at Amazon. They shared stories of being ignored and undermined by male executives and say they were eventually driven out of the company. One former employee says male colleagues completely ignored her comments in meetings. Another says a member of senior leadership impeded her career growth after she disagreed with him and that he created new management positions above her and filled them with men.

Frazzini’s lack of experience in video games showed during project review sessions, a standard industry ritual when the boss plays early prototypes and offers feedback. His comments were of the focus-group variety, recalls a former Amazon developer: “Why is it this color?” and “Seems fun. When will it be ready?” On a different occasion, says another developer, the team cringed as Frazzini struggled to differentiate between hyper-polished conceptual footage and live gameplay, a sign he didn’t understand the technology.
The embarrassments kept coming. In May 2020, Amazon released Crucible, the hero shooter inspired by Overwatch. “One of the things that we hear most often from people who try Crucible is that it feels unique,” Frazzini said in an interview at the time.

Gamers weren’t interested. Reviewers at IGN called it “tedious,” and PC Gamer declared: “Amazon’s long-awaited hero shooter wasn’t worth the wait.” Twitch didn’t offer much support, either. A week after release, fewer than 1,000 people were watching Crucible videos on Twitch. Former employees of the live-streaming unit say Twitch was often reluctant to alter a game’s fate through promotion. After all, Twitch can’t save a game nobody wants to play. Amazon pulled Crucible from wide release in June and then killed it in October.

That's a bit hypobolic, I mean they can't make good phones, tablets, or home assistants either.

Amazon is approximately as good at making video games as they are at keeping counterfeit goods out of their store.

And they care about both about equally.