SOE Boss: Non-Gamers "Have No Business In This Business"

[weirdee]

Ah yes. In particular, the MOST relevant people in the discussion are the intermediaries, like the people who greenlight projects as I previously mentioned (as they are the hands of the people who lead), and the directors and managers who oversee whole sections or act as liasons between those sections of the project. Those are the people who need to be most familiar with the game in order to make the tight decisions that keep a game's quality control high, and would definitely benefit from playing games to gather information for "the big picture" which is of course the main objective of the project.

 

[Varil]

Makes sense to me. After all, would you say EA/Activision/Ubisoft is successful because of, or DESPITE their executive decisions?

 

[MetalMagpie]

My aunt was one of the founders of a British film company (which has since been sold for a tidy sum). She is adamant that the best film producers are people who (like her) don't actually like films all that much. Directors need to be passionate about films, but producers need to have the cold eye of business on the whole thing. Otherwise they end up funding films they would like to be made, instead of films that will make money. Producers need to be very knowledgeable about films, but that's not the same as being passionate about them.

Whether or not you agree with her view, I think the same argument can be applied to people who run video games companies. They are running a business, and they need to make sure that business is financially successful (in order to keep all those lovely programmers, game designers, etc. in a job). So maybe it's better if they are knowledgeable about video games, but aren't actually gamers themselves (i.e. don't play video games for fun).

Not saying this is definitely the case in either industry, but I thought it was worth offering up as a counter view.

 

[Narcogen]

In other news, only race car drivers should work for automakers, professional sports team front offices should be staffed entirely by ex-players, every employee at every concert hall should play an instrument, and visiting the moon should be a prerequisite for being hired by NASA.

AAA game development these days requires a pretty sizable team of multidisciplinary artists and animators, composers and musicians, writers, voice actors and programmers, to say nothing of the support staff for those employees related to publishing, sales and marketing, testing, human resources, etc etc.

I'm sure that many, if not all, of those employees may have their work experience informed by a personal experience with gaming, to the benefit of the product. However, that is entirely a different proposition from saying that no one without such an interest has any proper role within game development. That is a terrible, narrow-minded, and parochial view that has little or no value beyond epeen waving. It is tantamount to saying "our development teams are more hardcore than yours because they actually play games". It is diametrically opposed to Kotick's rants about game development not being fun and games, but just about as worthless and detrimental to the industry as that statement was.

 

[N3squ1ck]

Upon reading this article...

Spoiler: ...this was the first thing that came to mind.

Absolutely 100% spot on. Thanks for posting that, Frank distilled my thoughts(as he always does) into a nutshell.

Great post.

(snip, sorry)

But in what situation are we right now? We are in the "The people want multiplayer, so we now force multiplayer in every single one of our releases"-phase, which really sounds like the hip young guys he is ranting about. In this case they are older and have cigars, but nevertheless they aren't really experimental in any way, shape or form.

 

[Vrach]

I'd say it depends on the job, but I can kinda get aboard with what he's saying for game designers and those in charge of the actual project (creatively, not financially). Artists (graphics, music) and the like can probably do their jobs just fine with never having played a video-game. Writers, people building the worlds and gameplay systems however... let's put it this way, how many good writers out there never read a book in their life? How many film directors never watched a movie?

When people are gamers, they have some perspective on what the gamers want. Don't take that 100% literally, of course not every gamer wants the same thing, but some things are more universal than others and having some knowledge of how what you're building is supposed to feel to someone playing it - well, if not mandatory, it would at least be one giant plus for most game making careers.

 

[the darknees abyss]

i think there right they should focus more on the game making not on the business side of things i think that people who play games should be the only making them as they know what we as games want

 

[MammothBlade]

He's right, to some degree. The guy at the top should be experienced with videogames and not just play Angry Birds now and then. It's like having a film director who's unaware of other films. However, you will always need fresh talent, and it would be foolish to miss out on a great artist, composer, or writer just because they're not a gamer.

 

[Phoenix8541]

I feel it is only necessary to have a firm knowledge of the product, people, and industry you are responsible for keeping the company in the forefront. I agree that it is hard to imagine someone being a position that has no game experience because it hinders their ability to relate to the market in which they live. This was even brought up at the recent expo panel, you can be a great designer and a lousy businessman or manager. If I have learned anything from the people I have meet from the Industry I can say that it requires a diverse group of talented individuals to create the medium that we all enjoy. Any high level management for any field must have an understanding of the base of what he is managing. Its hard to imagine the individuals mentioned have no idea of whats going on in the market, they probably surround themselves with groups and advisors who have the "time" to play games instead of managing a multi million dollar industry.

"overspecialize and you breed in weakness"

 

[itsthesheppy]

It's just a shame Planetside 2 is shaping up to be... not so great.

 

[Monsterfurby]

In other news, only race car drivers should work for automakers, professional sports team front offices should be staffed entirely by ex-players, every employee at every concert hall should play an instrument, and visiting the moon should be a prerequisite for being hired by NASA.

I think you are missing the point. He is not saying that only gaming professionals should become gaming professionals, but that mainly people with a passion for the product should work in the industry.

To use your examples: Yes, if you work for NASA it certainly HELPS to actually be interested in space-flight. If you work for a car manufacturer, it is certainly useful to have a license and kind-of enjoy cars. For managing a sports team, not enjoying the sport certainly puts you at a disadvantage.

 

[Nalgas D. Lemur]

You don't need to be a gamer to make music for games. You don't need to be a gamer to write for a game. YOu don't need to be a gamer to voice-act for a game. And you don't need to be a gamer to sit in the management of a game related company. You need a MANAGER.

No. But I imagine it helps immensely if you know about what you're contributing to create.

Obviously. But, like with cars, you don't need to know how to drive one to be able to fix one. You've seen people drive, you've probably been a passenger at one point or people can tell you how it's supposed to feel like and how it feels like now.

Ah, good old car analogies. Easy to come up with and usually not quite appropriate for any situation. We need some more variety: You don't need to have a vagina to be a gynecologist. There we go.

What were we talking about again?

I originally was going to go with: You don't need to be a woman to know how to sell a dildo. But then I wanted to use something more dignified.

Dignity is for wimps. And you don't need to be a woman to use one either. Heh.

 

[Irridium]

Hell, I'd settle for them just being forced to use their services.

If John Riccitiello was made to use Origin, methinks we'd see some drastic improvements happen real fast.

Same with Yves Guillemot and Uplay.

Of course, that depends on them being gamers. I think more gamers at the top would be a good thing. But if all the people at the top were gamers? Yeah... I don't know. It's important to have people who can snap you back at reality. It's also good to have people who play games and actually know about games be able to point and say "this will work, this won't. I know because I play it." Perhaps then we'd have less throwing huge piles of money into projects where it's obvious it'll never make a good amount of money. Why, hello EA and your $200 million or so you threw into The Old Republic, and that $150 you spent on Battlefield 3's marketing alone. And dumping so much money into Dead Space 3 that it needs to sell 5 million even though the games before it haven't sold that much combined.

So yeah, a mix of gamers and non-gamers at the top would be good.

I am sorry, but where are you getting that number from?

The best I can find is Patcher going 45-50 mil and that isn't any more than an educated guess, not a legitimate source.

From here [http://www.industrygamers.com/news/battlefield-3-to-take-down-call-of-duty-with-over-100-million-in-marketing/].

Though I seem to have been wrong anyway. Upon further research, he later clarified that MW3 and BF3 combinded would top $100 million in marketing.

My mistake. I'll edit the post.

 

[Doom972]

Did one of the following ever happened to you when playing a game:

The music made it hard to hear an important dramatic dialogue or couldn't be appreciated over the sound of gunfire?

You couldn't differentiate between friend and foe, or between different enemy types from a medium distance?

The game constantly kept relying on cutscenes to tell you the story?

If the people doing the jobs you mentioned would've played a few games, they might've taken these things into consideration.

Most of those things fall under the responsibility of people in producer and director roles.

1) They'd have to tell the audio engineer, not the composer, to adjust sound balance according to feedback they would likely receive during testing.

2) They'd have to tell the artist that two or more designs would be too hard to distinguish, so the artist would have to redo them. Concept art always goes through multiple iterations before making it into a game anyway.

3) Cutscene reliance is a matter of tradition, not writing. It's tied to the basic game design established in the original design document, and writers rarely have any input for those. Once again, it's directors/producers that instruct the writers of what's needed, and it's they who approve what makes it into the game.

But in the end, the reason for a lot of issues not being fixed before release comes down to bad planning, moving deadlines, or changed publisher demands. The base-level content creators are rarely responsible for these things.

As a principle, I agree with you that the producer/director is responsible for that. However, you have to admit that having people who know what they're doing and can visualize the final product can only help to make it better.

 

[DragonStorm247]

While not every single position need be filled by a gamer, I do agree that most of these top positions, these people who preside over EVERYTHING, should actually have the passion and familiarity of being gamers.

 

[IamLEAM1983]

I'd rephrase that a bit. I'd say you have no business being in the business if you're not passionate about it, specifically. If you've played a game, however casually, and managed to get something out of your experience, then you're better poised at being able to take up the challenge of managing a games publisher than someone who just took the position because they're good at making numbers meet.

On the other hand, if you're not passionate about games but that posting opens you up to that cultural sphere, then that's awesome as well, and I'd say you've qualified.

You can be a writer, a composer, a programmer, texture artist or animator and be passionate about games. Many of these people have little or no time to spend actually playing games. Company CEOs, on the other hand, have to embody the best of what their company has to offer. That includes some understanding of the medium, which is something you can't get if you just sit back and make sure ends meet fiscally or in terms of production deadlines.

Being a gamer is not a prerequisite, but it certainly does help.

 

[Strazdas]

i agree. Look at it this way: music industry went to "Evil" when nonmusicians started to rule over what musicians can create.
Movie industry shines only when stuff is created by people who love movies (quentin tarantino, Joss whedon just to give few examples) and ends up badly whe the distrubutr forces director to change stuff.

Why shouldnt this apply to gaming. Actually, it does. Just look how EA is help up agiasnt something like CD Project, which is extreme example, yes, but a good to prove the point. I always found the games to be the best when the developers played them themselves and once they stopped because "busienss took too much time" games started to rot away. so i agree with his theory. yes it needs more research, but the premise is there.

 

[Stalydan]

You don't need to be a gamer to make music for games. You don't need to be a gamer to write for a game. YOu don't need to be a gamer to voice-act for a game. And you don't need to be a gamer to sit in the management of a game related company. You need a MANAGER.

But being somewhat knowledgeable in the thing you're dealing with could really help. Somebody making music for a game could play other games in a genre to pick up on what music works when playing that type of game. A writer could play games to learn what things work better in games when making stories or writing scripts. A voice actor could play games to see what types of voices other people use when they're playing characters similar to their's. And managers could play games to see what things they enjoy and allow bigger risks when they think something has potential too.

I do think he's right in a way. You wouldn't work in the film or music industry unless you like them in someway so why should games be any different?