Lay Off the Layoffs

There is a culture which permeates all game development, both AAA and Indie: the culture of the Launch Layoff. You know how it goes. Your game launches one day, the next day you're out of a job. This has been happening for years, and it's time for it to stop.

It used to be that we would see a powerhouse indie studio rise up from the ashes of a fallen AAA studio, but the days of "for every one of us who falls, two more will take our place" are fading. Yes, there are a lot of indie studios still, but it seems many people have become complacent in the cycle of Get Job -> Make Game -> Lose Job.

This is not the fault of the employees. It is the fault of the entire industry for making us believe that Layoff Culture is and needs to be the norm. There are a few key steps that companies could take to prevent this from happening. Whether or not they will is up to them.

1. Smaller Games: Not every game needs to be Skyrim or Grand Theft Auto. Games are getting huge, so huge they're almost worth more than the current $60 price tag, and raising their prices will be the only way to keep producing games of this caliber. Developers need to be willing to work on smaller projects, much like indies do, that can make their money back at more reasonable prices or, if remaining at $60, will be successful enough to allow the hardworking team to keep their jobs.
2. Smaller Teams: The days of skeleton crews for Pre and Post Production need to be over. A team of 100+ employees is too big, and obviously (for a powerhouse studio) 5 people is too small. Keep it reasonable, 10-20 people. Contract out whatever work you can and keep your overheard low. Aim to come in under budget so your team can keep their jobs when the game's done!
3. Begin Preproduction Earlier: It's true that there are some jobs that aren't needed in the preproduction phase, and it's easiest just to layoff the current modelers, sound designers, etc. when your company enters the preproduction phase and hire new ones on when the game's been greenlit by the publisher. My solution: begin preproduction of the next project earlier so that the post-production of one game and major production of the next begin at the same time. Yes, this is expensive, especially for big teams, and for small teams the focus needs to be on the current project. Small teams, however, have no need to just sit around and lollygag in a preproduction phase. So, this brings me to my next suggestion:
4. Eliminate Preproduction Entirely: Very few forms of art have a "preproduction phase." The only two I can think of are movies and games. Movies need them because they need their sets scouted and/or built beforehand, they need to find their cast, they need the script written, etc. Games are much more iterative and can be built in real-time. Concept artists, animators, and modelers can work simultaneously to have a character designed and brought to life in a matter of hours instead of weeks if working separately. AGILE techniques can be used to bring a game to life in realtime instead spending months writing up a design doc that details every little bit of production, only to have that doc get trashed down the line because it can't keep up with what's actually happening in the game's development. Games don't need a huge preproduction phase, they need a quick and dirty proof of concept, a prototype that shows core gameplay, and that's it. The less time spent in preproduction, the more money a studio has to come up with new ideas for potential publisher pitches.
5. Publishers Need to Take Risks: The only reason new IPs are tough to come by is because publishers want sequels. Franchises mean money thanks to name recognition. Give developers the chance to stretch and experiment after a game's launch and there will be many great surprises in the video game industry. This, however, also means publishers need to greenlight potential flops, and that is okay. It's not a venture if it's not a risk, and the best way to learn - for publishers, developers, and everyone else - is to fail.
6. Crowdsource Your Idea: If you're not under publisher control, there's no reason to wait for publisher money anymore. I've talked in-depth about how the publisher model is not dead, and also how not all Kickstarter games will be successful, but while it's still a viable option there should be nothing stopping your team from saying, "Are the people interested in this game?" and actually asking them that very question. Why predict when you can survey, and why just get a bunch of "Yes" answers when you can get actual dollars? Don't think that Kickstarter is the only option either. If you run a company with a well-recognized name and plenty of media coverage, you can crowdsource your games on your own website.

What this all comes down to is NO MORE SITTING AROUND! You want to make games for a living? Make games and don't STOP making games! The money thing will take care of itself in time. Take a page from the indie playbook and just dive right in.

The Publisher Model Is (Sadly) Not Dead

First of all, I would like to start this post my congratulating my friends at Double Fine on DECIMATING their Kickstarter goal in less than a day. Way to go guys!

ROCK THE FUCK ON, DOUBLE FINE!

For those unaware, Double Fine have raised over $1.3 million in just over a day on Kickstarter. This is record shattering, especially considering they were only looking for $400k to make a game by Rocktober. Based on this and a few other outliers, many now believe that the traditional publisher model is dead.

Oh how they couldn't be more wrong.

Still alive!

If developers begin relying solely on crowd-funded sources for game development, we haven't gone anywhere in terms of progressing the power over what games we're "allowed" to make. Let me explain. Right now, the process goes something like this. You prototype a game, you show that prototype to a publisher, they shoot you down, and you go back to the drawing board; or they LOVE your game and give a bajillion dollars. With crowdfunding, just replace "a publisher" with "the internet." Considering the number of trolls and "TL;DR" types on the internet, it's not exactly an ideal place for business pitches.

Don't get me wrong, I love Kickstarter. I ran one myself almost a year ago to fund Children of Liberty, and it was successful, making $5944 out of a $5000 goal, or 118% of what we wanted (minus the Kickstarter and Amazon fee). However, a full commercial game cannot be made on $5000 alone, and we knew it, but thank GOD we didn't ask for more. I've never gone into this before, but I'd like to show off some of the metrics from our Kickstarter, if you don't mind bearing with me for a bit.

This graph shows what our funding was over the course of the 60 day period during which we ran our Kickstarter, from March 10, 2011 to May 10, 2011. The first 48 hours were immense and we made just over 50% of our goal (thanks, families!). However, after PAX East, it tapered off. Over the next 6 weeks, we made just over $1000. That's $166.67 a week, not even McDonalds money.

(The saddest part of this is that this tapering period also included our extremely unsuccessful grassroots campaign around Boston to find backers, which you can read about at Boston Indies).

A question many people have asked me is, "Why didn't you shoot for more?" Three reasons: one, this was our first Kickstarter AND our first commercial game, so naturally we needed to play it a bit on the safe side or we'd make $0; two, we'd had zero coverage on the game up to this point, so no one had heard of it or us; and three, we had a very specific use for the $5k we wanted off of Kickstarter: Unity Pro. We knew the game was going to need to be heavily focused on the use of shadows both aesthetically and mechanically, so Unity Free was not an option.

One thing to keep in mind is that at the time we ran our campaign, Kickstarters were not considered news. Kotaku had not yet started their weekly Kickstarter-based column to help indies out. Few people retweeted or shared the link who were not close friends or family of ours. By the end we made our goal, but it was cut close - too close. We hit our goal on May 3, one week before the end of the campaign. This was also the around the time Kickstarter decided to feature us on every page imaginable on their site that would help us out: Project of the Day, Video Games, and Boston at the same time. You couldn't browse around the site without finding us! However, we still made under $2000 from direct traffic on Kickstarter itself. Most of our traffic was still coming from our Facebook and Twitter, so thank you so much to the gracious fans of Lantana Games!

And damn if it ain't lookin' pretty now.

Luckily for those running a Kickstarter in 2012, things have drastically changed. News sources are now TOTALLY WILLING to cover Kickstarters, just make sure your game is cool. The other thing that's changed is now, thanks to Double Fine, people are willing to shell out a lot more money a LOT more quickly to the most awesome of ideas.

This brings me back to my original point though: the traditional publisher model is not dead, not while there is one Double Fine Adventure Game to every 100 Children of Liberties. $5000 is not our entire budget, and if it was we most certainly would not have moved into Unity Pro; or been able to bring on our awesome animators Mike, Ricky, and sound guy Rob, all of whom are giving the game an incredible atmosphere.

Indie developers still need publishers, not necessarily for funding the game's development, but definitely for everything else: PR, distribution, localization, etc. All of these things cost a LOT of money, money that is certainly out of range for most indies. Many indies see all publishers as intrinsically evil though. There is this stigma that if you have EA backing you in some way that you're no longer "indie." Well guess what guys? EA  Partners distributes Shank, a very indie game and a personal favorite (oh and buy Shank 2 on Steam now!). Can the average indie afford $100,000 in development costs, $20,000 in localization costs, $50,000 in PR, and more money for console testing, legal fees, and everything else on their own? Hell no. Can they get there with a Kickstarter? I'm going to have to be a pessimist here and also say no. Maybe you'll get your full development costs off of Kickstarter, but don't bank on getting enough for the rest. I've never revealed Children of Liberty's full budget, and I won't until it's done, because even though it's more than what we got off of Kickstarter, it's still head-scratchingly low.

This shit's rarer than oil.

If anything, there is now room in the ecosystem for indie publishers, companies willing to shell out for PR, distribution, and localization of independently developed games while only asking for 10%-15% on royalties; companies who would be willing to help new developers get their games tested and out the door onto services like Steam, Desura, and included in The Humble Indie Bundle and IndieRoyale; who then take all the money they've made off of one indie project and use it to help fund the next indie project. Is that too much to ask for?

Kickstarter is awesome, but it is not the new mold. Double Fine is an outlier, a shining example of what to aim for, much like Minecraft's sales numbers. Keep in mind, though, we cannot all be Tim Schafer or Marcus Persson. Some of us are still going to get laughed at when we hand out postcards with our Kickstarter info on it, only to scrape up a few measly bucks from the bowels of the world wide web, sometimes not coming anywhere close to our intended goal. Some of us will give up because, hey, we gotta eat, and others will trudge forward until the game's done. Either way, guess what? The model's the same. Kickstarter or publisher, you're putting the future of your game in someone else's hands.