Joe and Anthony Russo had a pretty good summer. The brothers directed and released Marvel’s summer blockbuster Captain America: The Winter Soldier. The pair got that opportunity after working with smaller budgets in the independent-film scene and on television, and they worked their way up to making one of the biggest movies in the world.
That’s a story we don’t really have in gaming.
Independent and triple-A gaming development is experiencing the opposite, really. The big names from top developers are leaving their jobs directing huge projects to start their own, smaller development studios. Meanwhile, the hottest talent responsible for beloved, best-selling indie games aren’t moving up to direct larger projects for major publishers with enormous budgets. They’re sticking to their roots or focusing their efforts on expanding the games that made them popular in the first place.
The question is why is “upward mobility” in gaming broken?
We can point to a list of high-profile examples of triple-A developers leaving behind their positions at major publishers or big developers to do something smaller and more focused:
And on the independent side of things a staggering number of developers have made smash hits but aren’t moving on Ubisoft, Nintendo, or Sony. Here are just a few:
- Marcus “Notch” Persson: Minecraft. He made Minecraft, which is perhaps the biggest game in the world. Persson is worth millions, and he’s passed on development of the block-building phenomenon to others. He’s building some small games now.
- Edmund McMillen and Tommy Refenes: The developers known as Team Meat released Super Meat Boy to critical acclaim in 2010. The pair is now working on a new game, Mew-Genics.
- Jonathan Blow: This independent developer broke onto the scene in 2008 with the beloved time-bending platformer Braid. He is one of the best-known names in gaming. He is developing The Witness, which is an open-world puzzler with rich 3D visuals.
- Zoë Quinn: The Depression Quest developer didn’t join a major publisher after launching her own game. Instead, she joined the indie studio Loveshack Entertainment as its narrative designer while she works on her own full-motion-video game.
- Dean Hall: This New Zealand-born developer created the extremely popular zombie-survival mod Day Z for the open-world military shooter Arma II. He now works for Arma developer Bohemia Interactive on the full, standalone version of Day Z. He is a rare example of someone going on to work at a large developer, but he has already said that he will leave Bohemia later this year to move back into independent development in New Zealand.
I’m sure you noticed a common theme or trend among the above developers. Most of the former big-name triple-A directors are now CEOs at their own studios. When it comes to the younger, always-independent developers, they don’t follow up their hits by seeking out an opportunity with a corporation.
So, what’s going on?
Running the show
A lot of what’s happening comes down to who is really in charge of a project. Going back to the Russos, working for Marvel and Disney, they had to answer to one of the world’s largest conglomerates. They probably agreed to a lot before starting production. But once filming started, and this is the case on most films, the director(s) are running the show. They decide what a scene looks like, they are the ones the actors go to for answers.
Again, in gaming, that’s not really the case and for multiple reasons.
Developers are corporations
When Disney brought in the Russos to make Captain America: Winter Soldier, they went on to hire a team of contract employees through their respective unions. They didn’t try to form a company that would focus on making similar movies with the same people over and over. Instead, the corporation will go on owning the property, and everyone who made the film can use their experience to get more work making another one.
Above: The Electronic Arts offices.
Image Credit: EA
Game development doesn’t work like that. It’s actually more like a musical band that comes together to make games in a process that’s reminiscent to producing albums — but only with up to hundreds of employees and a chief executive officer and chief marketing officer and chief financial officer and chief technology officer. Sometimes a developer works under a publisher with multiple studios. This leads to situations where the director of a game is fighting for control with multiple people who all have a say.
“For me it’s pretty simple — I’m getting older and the time to make something that I feel passionate about shrinks every day,” Goldfarb told GamesBeat. “I have no interest in burning two years of my life on a very large team making very large games — with all the friction and compromise that comes with it. Don’t get me wrong. I adore those games. I have loved making them in many cases. But it’s time to do something else that is closer to the bone.”
Many developers responsible for big games find that directing a triple-A project isn’t necessarily about coming up with ideas and executing. It’s all about delegating tasks to huge subsets of teams inside a studio and making sure everyone is communicating. That means someone at the top of an Assassin’s Creed release isn’t working on exquisitely crafting important scenes; instead, they’re managing a massive organization rife with office politics.
This doesn’t leave a lot of room for creative expression.
“At the end of the day, people want to be free,” said Goldfarb. “That’s the best way I can put it. Finding avenues for that freedom is harder in triple-A, where the sheer mass of the team size makes simple things like communication incredibly difficult. Some people thrive in those conditions and want that to be their end goal. I got there and was profoundly unhappy with how it made me feel. For now, it simply feels like less is more.”
Publishers hide the talent
On top of the corporate structure and massive studio sizes, publishers often bury the contributions of individuals under the name of the company. It’s hard to feel good about your accomplishments when the corporation pretends like they came out of thin air.
“I really, really dislike ‘hiding the developers.’ It reeks of insecurity,” Bleszinski wrote on Reddit. “If people know who the developers are, then the developers have leverage. It’s Business 101.”
Hell, Ubisoft allegedly fired Désilets after acquiring his studio from THQ. They had him back for a few months before splitting up again. We don’t know the state of Désilets’s game, 1666, which Ubisoft still owns, but we can infer that the publisher and the designer had disagreements that cost Désilets his latest game and his job.
Powered by VBProfiles