Analyst: Publishers Could Benefit from Treating Developers Like Stars
"There are very few people in this world who know how to create hits. Not create a hit, but create multiple hits," Wilson told MTV Multiplayer. "Those creative minds should be recognized and remunerated in the video game industry for their contribution as much as other forms of media."
"From a business perspective, that might be more expensive, but if the reward is better selling games the trade-off is worth it," he added.
Wilson went on to suggest that despite that potential, many publishers see development icons as interchangeable in terms of franchise development, noting that Take-Two would likely develop a BioShock sequel with or without creative director Ken Levine.
"Development would go right along without [Levine] and that would be a shame," he said. "If George Lucas died today the probability of another Star Wars installment would go to 0%. If Stallone died today, the probability of another Rambo installment would go to 0%."
But the appeal of churning out sequels and building up franchises regardless of involved talent is emphasized at many companies, particularly Electronic Arts.
"[That method] does create predictability, which is a near-term positive," Wilson noted. "However, it also in many cases restricts innovation. I�ve been critical of EA for the last few years and it is common knowledge among gamers that their brand has been tarnished due to deteriorating quality."
-
The biggest downside to treating a developer like a rock star is that it goes to his or her head and they become just that much harder to work with.
Let us never forget the lesson learned from the Romero.-
-
-
I can tell you which is better, treating game devs like rock stars. Who cares if it boosts the ego, it gives more incentive to deliver on said reputation. Romero stands out because he had a big reputation but failed to deliver. If the ego isn't supported by results than no one is going to listen to that person whether they think they're the bees knees or not.
-
does it have to be that way? Can't developers be of similar stature to each other AND irreplaceable?
I think game developers are ideally more like a rock band, except with dozens of people instead of just a handful. While there can be big stars within the company, usually it's the unique chemistry of all the people together that result in the final product. It's not like a film studio or an orchestra, where you have a few big movers (ie. directors, movie stars, conductors, soloists) commanding a hierarchical structure or defining the key aspects of the product.
-
Then you don't work with them? Think of a big name, full of itself developer that is actually relevant today. A process of natural selection takes them out of the equation.
It would be great if developers were treated for what they really are, the actual creators of everything. Those powerpoint slides we see from publishers bragging about their managerial prowess and yearly growth, not to mention commitment to "brands" and franchises in the form of future projects...all bombastic crap of people who should be proud of choosing the right designers and efforts to fund, which is no different conceptually speaking than a consumer satisfied with his game purchase, all that changes is the monetary investment.
I wouldn't mind knowing the name of several more successful designers. I'm stuck at some names from the '90s, when this used to be more common.
-