|
[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.
|
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.
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."
@ 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.
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.
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.
It's probably beyond the reach of most studios, sadly.