Our Properties: Gamasutra GameCareerGuide IndieGames Indie Royale GDC IGF Game Developer Magazine GAO
My Message close
Contents
Game Law: Get Your Pigs in a Row!
 
 
Printer-Friendly VersionPrinter-Friendly Version
 
Latest News
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
Road to the IGF: Lucky Frame's Pugs Luv Beats
 
Analyst questions validity of unusual January NPD results [3]
 
DICE 2012: Blizzard's Pearce on World Of Warcraft's launch hangover
spacer
Latest Jobs
spacer View All     Post a Job     RSS spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Audio Tools Engineer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
World Wide Studios Technical Product Manager
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Senior Software Application Engineer
 
Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC
Senior Gamer Insights Specialist
 
Telltale Games
Core Technology - Senior Systems Engineer
 
High 5 Games
Technical Artist
spacer
Latest Features
spacer View All spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
arrow Principles of an Indie Game Bottom Feeder [19]
 
arrow Postmortem: CyberConnect 2's Solatorobo: Red the Hunter [1]
 
arrow Jerked Around by the Magic Circle - Clearing the Air Ten Years Later [39]
 
arrow Building the World of Reckoning [4]
 
arrow SPONSORED FEATURE: TwitchTV - How to Build Community Around Your Game in 2012 [13]
 
arrow Happy Action, Happy Developer: Tim Schafer on Reimagining Double Fine [9]
 
arrow Building an iOS Hit: Phase 1 [11]
 
arrow Postmortem: Appy Entertainment's SpellCraft School of Magic [5]
spacer
Latest Blogs
spacer View All     Post     RSS spacer
 
February 10, 2012
 
Audio Passes: Success Through Layering
 
What the current RPG can learn from Diablo 1
 
Double Fine's Kickstarter Windfall: Will Patronage Supplant Traditional Game Publishing? [5]
 
The Principles of Game Monetization
 
Did DoubleFine Just break the publishing model for good? [13]
spacer
About
spacer Editor-In-Chief/News Director:
Kris Graft
Features Director:
Christian Nutt
Senior Contributing Editor:
Brandon Sheffield
News Editors:
Frank Cifaldi, Tom Curtis, Mike Rose, Eric Caoili, Kris Graft
Editors-At-Large:
Leigh Alexander, Chris Morris
Advertising:
Jennifer Sulik
Recruitment:
Gina Gross
 
Feature Submissions
 
Comment Guidelines
Sponsor
Features
  Game Law: Get Your Pigs in a Row!
by Tom Buscaglia [Business]
8 comments Share on Twitter Share on Facebook RSS
 
 
June 3, 2008 Article Start Page 1 of 2 Next
 

[As a developer, how do you plan the next game while completing the existing one? Veteran game lawyer and consultant Tom Buscaglia examines snakes eating pigs, metaphorically, to provide the answer.]

Isn't That Supposed to be Ducks?


Well actually no. Allow me to explain. I often counsel developers on the importance of focusing on building a great game studio to make great games, instead of focusing on making a great game to build a great game studio.

The reason for this is that if you build a solid studio your chances of getting to make that opus you yearn to create is much greater.

It also allows you to eat, have a home and live in a similar fashion to other folks in society instead of emulating the starving artists of our romantic fantasies. Quite simply, being consumed by passion is wonderful, but it does not pay the rent... and often leads to madness.

I Know, You Still Don't See Any Animals.

Let's take a look at the issues that need to be considered in building a sustainable business model for your studio. One thing you need is the ability to have a coherent projection of revenues and operating expenses, commonly referred to as a budget. I personally hate spreadsheets.

But spreadsheets are the language of budgets much like musical notes are the language of music. I suspect that many studio heads dislike spreadsheets as much as I do. But the successful ones know how to read and write in that obscure language of the budget.

The simple fact is that without a projected revenue and expense model it is very hard to determine if you are succeeding or even whether your studio is in survival or extinction mode. I am not advocating letting the budget "tail" wag the company business strategy "dog".

But you do need to know when you are succeeding and when you are not. And budgets are a better way to check than the old reliable "Can I make payroll?" model. And even a bad budget should deliver the news well in advance of a catastrophe -- hopefully in time to adjust.

Still No Animals, But We are Getting Closer.

In everything but the most basic games, a team is required to build the game. And in the more sophisticated games, that team is not of a consistent size throughout the project. I am going to avoid the funding issue for purposes of this example and just look at the development process in isolation.

The dev cycle goes through several more or less recognizable stages that we are all pretty familiar with... concept development, prototyping, full design documentation, vertical slice, asset generation, feature lock, testing, GM candidate and final rounds of tuning and debugging, acceptance and release.

However, there are significant differences in terms of the studio's month-to-month budget associated with this process. Moreover, understanding and planning for these budget fluctuations can be critical to the success or failure of the studio, especially if it is operating as a single project studio.

OK, Bring in the Animals.

First, the snake. The snake represents the project leads. Those core team members involved in the initial design and prototyping stages of the project. You probably know who I mean on your team. This is a tight group of highly talented individuals who bring home the meat. (The rest is mostly sizzle.)

For purposes of this example, let's say this is a five-man team. They will be involved in the project from conception through delivery. And whenever the going gets tough, these will be the "go to" guys. They will probably also be the last members of your team to touch the game before the final GM candidate is accepted.

Now we introduce the pig. The pig is the vast number of people involved in generating the multitude of assets that comprise the full game. The artists, level designers, animators, scripters, tool programmers and all the others who build the assets that fill out the game and add that all important sizzle.

In effect, the pig delivers sustenance to the snake. How? By being eaten, of course. And the development process is then revealed to be like that old National Geographic image that haunted so many children's dreams. That small head and long thin body with the huge lump in the middle -- the pig in the snake.

 
Article Start Page 1 of 2 Next
 
Comments

Shaun Huang
profile image
lmao, if you let all your pigs get "eaten," how will they ever grow up to become snakes in your studio?
If you exclusively rely on buying 3rd Party grown snakes all the time, how do you know you did not fall prey to false advertisement and your first product doesn't even get off the ground?
IMO, your pig-model will only work if you perhaps gouge out their eyes and shut their ears so that they would never know how life is like outside of the meatpacking factory.
We really pay the C-students too much money in our industry. Seriously.

Jonathan Blow
profile image
This is all very complicated and unwieldy. The answer I prefer is actually much simpler than this, but nobody ever wants to listen to it:

Don't ever make a game unless you have enough money in the bank to make a game 3x as large with 3x as much staff.

If you don't have very much money in the bank, this means you start by making very small, very simple games.

Studios should never be sailing as close to financial ruin as Tom is suggesting here unless they are founded by someone who is expecting a high risk (i.e. probable insolvency) for a high payoff.

Yes, most game developers today (and for the past decade or two) have been in the habit of producing stuff on very thin budget constraints -- and they also never really have control of their studio, they crank out mediocre game after mediocre game just so they can get deals signed in time and make milestones, and then they eventually (usually) just go out of business. Also, walking such a thin line is exactly what enables publishers to exploit developers to the current degree.

A developer should never be looking to land a deal as soon as they can, whether "the pigs are in a row" or not. The developer should have the means to create the entire game without worrying about an advance, and sign a deal at his convenience, at the time that will give him the best possible deal and/or best distribution.

In the modern day when there are little flash games that make money from ads, coexisting in the same world as GTA4, there is really only one excuse for taking as much business risk as is outlined in this article: "Yeah, I was driving the studio hard and I kind of expect it will go out of business, but if it does, no biggie."


Sean Berry
profile image
Nice article. I like to have my consciousness raised every now and then that making video games is a business.

@ John Blow:
I disagree that being aware of your business model will keep you at the edge of financial ruin and force you to make mediocre games. Knowing your numbers will allow you to deal with problems intelligently when they come up.

Don't be afraid of losing your creativity by giving the business side of things the attention it deserves.

Jonathan Blow
profile image
Sean, that's not what I was saying. Being aware of your business model is fine. It's the type of business model he is advocating (pipeline your game deals together as closely as possible) that I think is a terrible thing for developers to do, if they ever want control over their lives.

Jeff Zugale
profile image
"If it takes six months of designing, prototyping, and documenting to get to the point to pitch the next game, then you need to get started on it about 12-15 months before the GM delivery of your current project."

Ideally, this would be great, but a lot of studios are doing projects that only have 15-18 month schedules for the "current" game, so this may be unrealistic in many cases.

An idea that might help is to not just have your core leads (snakes) and production staff (pigs), but also have a third team that's sort of in between the two. This team would be "production leads" that would be in charge of the bulk of the production, whereas the "snakes" would be the "creative/preproduction leads" who generate new game ideas and prototype them without being involved in the day-to-day of the game in production.

So, the preproduction team hands off to the production team, then goes on to something else.

Time management, time management, time management. Absolutely crucial to complex project development.

Javier Arevalo
profile image
"the preproduction team hands off to the production team, then goes on to something else."

That sounds great but it's incredibly hard to pull off - few (if any) studios have the kind of maturity required to make that kind of transition work. The problems with that would be enough to fill one or several articles.

The closest thing that anyone (to my knowledge) uses would be a prototyping unit. You need strong leads (snakes? I don't know, the article's imagery went way over my head) in both production and preproduction, and it's much easier for the core of a preproduction team to remain as the core during production as well.

This still means you need to have two core teams, experienced people that can be hard to find and expensive to retain.

Jeff Zugale
profile image
Oh I agree, it would be very difficult. Really effective people and really effective, flexible management is necessary.

It's probably beyond the reach of most studios, sadly.

Anonymous
profile image
I gotta say, the first sign of a good studio is one that respects its employees, because that's what good games are made of. To that end, perhaps thinking of the majority of the production team as "pigs", isn't the best approach. That's a sure way to churn out crappy, assembly-line games. It's not "pigs" that need aligning, it's "snakes" that need staggering. Snakes need to be baking multiple buns, "pigs" need to help out. The creative director/executive producer should be exploring new avenues on his/her own time. Good movie directors work like that. That way there's not a moment of, "what do we do next."


none
 
Comment:
 




UBM Techweb
Game Network
Game Developers Conference | GDC Europe | GDC Online | GDC China | Gamasutra | Game Developer Magazine | Game Advertising Online
Game Career Guide | Independent Games Festival | Indie Royale | IndieGames

Other UBM TechWeb Networks
Business Technology | Business Technology Events | Telecommunications & Communications Providers

Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Contact Us | Copyright © UBM TechWeb, All Rights Reserved.