Sad day for the team. This is another example of the downside to aggressive bottom line project management - layoffs for not meeting projections. Should be a warning to all talent in internal publisher studios, that even though you ship a game, if it does not meet sales projections your job is at risk.

Some how this just doesn't ring true coming from someone who didn't have much sympathy for Grin's staff. How is your "warning" the least bit constructive? We don't know the in's and out's of this situation from Adam other than the few words from unknown sources.

Grin is different Steve, they failed with each of their three chances. This team did a decent job with Wolfenstein. Andre you may be right about Bethesda, but this highlights that the stakes are higher than ever for team. In the past mediocrity was tolerated to a higher degree. Now the beancounters are running the show.

Looks like I hit the nail on the head then.

Creative work, if it's at all worth making, is innately risky. If we're going to reduce layoffs, this industry has to learn how to manage risk better.

When games were cheap to make, the shotgun approach allowed the one hit to pay for all experiments. With game budgets so high now and with so many expensive licenses, the shotgun approach doesn't work anymore. About 8 years ago companies starting focusing on quality over quantity, pouring money into projects to "ensure" they were hits. Somehow though, the magic that makes one game successful over another is not quantifiable to money. The spark that makes a hit relies on vision and creativity and a publisher willing to take a chance on something different.

@To Timothy: And that is the reason why I don't think we'll see a next-generation in the near future. Studios cannot gamble on rising development costs (some analysts predict that next-generation projects may ascend up to $60 million dollars, almost like a summer blockbuster movie :S). This generation is truly testing the game industry, and maturing it. What you say is true: the industry needs to manage risk in a better way.

What is "that better way"? There are two options: Either studios expand their operations and hire more creative individuals to produce that "next big thing" by having a regular slate (something similar to what Activision is doing, but without that stupid agressivenes towards the bottom line which reduces creativity), or they become shorter, all of them, creating competitive clusters and strategic alliances in order to survive (something like the shareware scenario of the early 90s).

Wow... every single day that passes makes me love this industry even more...

@ Jorge

There is a "better way" blueprint, the small targeted audience method being used by Japanese (and US) developers/producers on not so sexy platforms such as the DS or XBLA. Find an niche audience you are comfortable with and can make money serving, know what they want and provide product. Even your best products may not get screentime on G4 or IGNs seal of approval, but if you are comfortable making the games that you are making, and staying in business at the same time -- do all the bells and whistles really matter?

Looks like a trend occurring here, complete a project and reduce, reduce, reduce. Regardless of human impact on those being cut, or those that "survive". It's sad to see. I hope to see more studios spin out of these sad events.

How loyal would/ should an employee be after they have seen 1/3 of their coworkers get told to take a walk because mismanagement caused over hiring, and other such freshman mistakes.

It's scary to me that a game that ships as a number 1 seller still sees layoffs, just for the fact that it didn't meet sales projections. I know the situation is more complex, and I won't pretend to know the intricacies of it, however, it's still crazy. There's got to be a way to scale down production costs while shipping a quality next gen product.

One other trend I've been seeing when it comes to the "artist" side of game dev. work, at least from the many friends I've got that are game artists, is that the game artist "job" is becoming very nomadic. I know artists that have been jumping all over the U.S. from gig to gig. They are like band roadies. No studio seems to want to hang on to them once they've done the job. A friend of mine is even going to China for a gig. This may be ok for the single fellows, but it can be rough for families.

Two problems I see with the industry right now:
1. Too many developers.
2. Too many games released in a single year.
3. Too many greedy investors. Although that goes for all industries.
I bet that is making this whole layoff scenario even worse.

Thing is, Hollywood has been doing this for years. When a film is finished, they "lay off" almost everyone involved. Perhaps we should move more towards a model where artists are treated like freelance contractors whose contract lasts only as long as the project. At least then they can plan for this kind of thing.

Some valid points. Here are a few others to consider:

1) The economy. No one is untouched by the current state of the economy. The bean counters are looking at all the economic factors and have to make tough choices so that they can ensure the survival of the company as a whole. In a good economy, there are fewer layoffs, for many reasons.
2) Poor planning. With larger and larger teams, sku planning becomes more important so that the resources of the company can be justified over a longer period of time. With poor planning the end of a project can leave many people without any work to do and the company can not justify keeping them on. This is the trend that Brian was talking about. Pixar is notorious for it's hire/layoff cycle. Better long-term planning can help but is a difficult thing to do in a creative industry.
3) Large projects. The larger the project the more resources are needed and the greater the possibility of those resources not being needed when the project is finished. The sale to Bethesda may very well have freed the unneeded resources. The trend toward larger projects and larger budgets will naturally increase the hire/layoff cycle and will perpetuate the "nomadic artist" as Rodney pointed out.

You see these trends in other industries as well, design and construction is a good example. Companies have to survive and unfortunately it's often at the expense of it most valuable assets.

Sad day, I recall being at Activision between 96-99, we thought Raven studios as gods and lucky that ATVI was allowed to purchase them, another time another hope. Hopefully, everyone lands back on their feet super fast.

@Andre, my comment has to do with the sincerity of her "sadness" not the quantification of sales or quality of the games. She was less than charitable to the plight of the Grin staff who lost their jobs (a they deserved it approach). Perhaps that is what you meant by "somewhat."

Just think of the game as a "ship" vs. something that will eventually "ship", and you can avoid layoffs altogether. This puts the burden of manning the vessel (ramping up for game development) on the people owning it (the publishers) vs. a game dev. company (third party).

Example:

Activision buys the rights to Ghostbusters. They hire a producer, he hires managers, they hire people that they worked with who produced for them in the past...the game gets assembled, shipped...everyone moves on. Maybe they didn't like the managing style. Maybe they didn't like the lack of profit sharing (should be a BIG thing in game development!!!). It doesn't matter. It's not really contract work, it's just waiting for the next ship to pull into port, and deciding if you want to go on a two year journey with the crew that's being assembled (maybe a month to recruit? IDK).

What this means is that you won't have dead weight on your team, since you will want to work with people you like, ie people who PULL THEIR WEIGHT.

Games is wayyyyy to fickle a business to assume ANY company will retain you for any length of time...unless you are in Japan, but that is a different story. Games either needs to get unionized, like Hollywood, or create a model where there are pools of talent that people can pick from. The better you are at your job, the more $$$...really, it should be the more profits you share. You bust your ass for 2 years, make a great game, have $$$ to think about your next project. Totally removes the whole notion of selling yourself to slave wages to have the "privilege" of working with ridiculous egos. My two cents.

The ship example is one way of looking at it J. Kelly and this is very much akin to the hollywood model.
The reality is that much of what you describe is already happening, especially with talent pools. Sure we may not have the greatest profit sharing models, or unions. But certainly anyone who's ever worked in the industry has self evaluated their peers and asked themselves if they would want to work with them again or not. As artists, designers and other developers move around the industry, the people you know and have worked with can be inderectly considered an asset. Especially for instance when joining a smaller studio within a larger industry center.

On another note,
Without the proper planning it's near impossible (read very costly) for a small to medium sized studio to absorb it's teams into it's other projects. Studios need to take more of a staggered approach to their development cycles; as a team nears the end of their cycle there should already be another "rogue" team ready and waiting to start absorbing. Once the first games launches, the second should be well beyond pre-production and nearing full on development.

I think/hope we're already starting to see this aproach through the widening launch windows over the last couple of years. It used to be that most games came out in the fall/x-mas season, but more and more we're seeing games being released throughout the year. Hopefully this is partially due to studios realising that releasing their two big games at the same time or even the same year doesn't help when trying to sustain their dev teams.

@Gomez

Why you have SUCH love to personally attack people? Now you are attacking Rebecca for no reason... As you can see, not only me, but other people agree with her, and she don't said anything outrageous or that is a lie.

To whatever who deleted Gomez post: Now that his post is gone, delete mine too, otherwise this would look bizarre and that I am attacking someone without reason...

"1. Too many developers."

I'm probably taking this the wrong way but as one of those 'kids' trying desperately hard to get into the industry, it sounds like you're trying to say, "sorry, house is full"

I know that's not what you are saying, but more developers means more companies looking to hire, and a better chance for me. Yes they could go belly up, but I just need the in.

All I'm saying is when reading the above quote I can't help but get the image of a elitist snob developer saying, "sorry but the exclusive club is closed."

Personally, I don't think less developers or less games would solve anything. In my opinion what we need is a more educated consumer and that can only come in time. What I mean is that unlike the hardcore gamer, casual gamer and parent might not do any shopping before buying. Put a Spiderman or a Mario on a box, and parents or casual gamer will buy it without even reading a review. Also, just because a game is hyped and your friends like it, doesn't mean that it is the best game for you. Maybe today, buying a game is not like buying a car, but hopefully as time goes by, consumer will shop better for games. This will give the industry a better ''shape'', companies will stay as long as they deliver a quality game for people actually waiting for it.