
Irrational Games (Bioshock Infinite) is shutting down - piratebroadcast
http://irrationalgames.com/
======
tibbon
Maybe its just me, but there is something _deeply_ flawed with the game
industry's hiring/firing practices.

If a game does well, its time to lay off half (or more) of the team. Same
result happens if a game does poorly of course. But it seems the only way to
'win' is to be at the top, or simply not play.

I've seen this now with everything from Harmonix to Irrational Games. There
seems to be a huge amount of money made with these blockbuster games, but
vanishingly few companies seem to be able to manage their game development
cycles efficiently as to always need a staff. It always comes off as terrible
management/project management.

For example, Harmonix's Rock Band was huge. There was around $299 million of
bonuses paid to people at the top. Yet, I had friends work there get laid off
repeatedly (once right before Christmas), sometimes shortly after the people
at the top got the bonuses. Why in the world didn't they think to diversify a
bit, run a few concurrent development cycles, etc...

The most sane way to do game development seems to be to start your own indie
studio and keep your expenses very low. Everything else seems... irrational.

~~~
ender7
The game business is like the movie business in that projects are "seasonal"
rather than a constant thing. Unless you are working on a tight little indie
game or a recurring blockbuster series (Call of Duty, Madden), the number of
people that are required at any one time in development is incredibly
variable. "Pre-production" headcounts need to be very small because the devs
are still figuring out what the game _is_ and so don't have anything for an
army of artists or engineers to do.

Programming jobs in the games industry (and the entertainment industry in
general) are not like "normal" programming jobs, despite the fact that they
require an almost identical skill set. Put another way, they require the
skills of a programmer but function on the employment schedule of a Hollywood
lightning technician.

(It sounds like the company your friend worked at was also mismanaged on top
of this cycle, which always makes things worse. Sometimes very much worse.)

~~~
mbell
I think part of what tends to get missed is that while AAA game development
certainly has software development as part of it, it's a relatively small part
of the overall project from a person power and cost perspective. It's not
uncommon for a ~200 person game development team to have only ~15 software
engineers on board, with the rest being on the game development side (game
designers, animators, artists, level builders, game logic creators, testers,
community managers, marketing, etc).

It's also not uncommon for the internal tooling that gets created to allow the
game development folks to build out the game to dwarf the actual game code is
size/scope. There tends to be a large upfront effort from the software
engineering side to get the engine ready and the supporting internal tooling
ready for the game designers to go to town, after that it can be years in the
game development process with only bugs, maintenance and smaller feature
additions to the engine/tooling for the software dev side of the process.

With such a lopsided time investment schedule between disciplines you need to
be either a massive company or only work on games with a small scope to
achieve smooth employment for all involved.

~~~
BSousa
Unless things changed in the last 5 years or so, your numbers are way off
base.

Last game I worked it was around 100 dev people where 30% was software
development, and from those 30% maybe 20% were tooling support.

~~~
Paul_S
It depends on the technology model. If the company is using a licensed engine
than there's very few coders - 10%-20% would be the number I'd pull out of
thin air (probably 5% if you count all the outsourced artists working in
sweatshops that never get credited). Some projects don't even need their own
coders if they're reskins of other games and just borrow the coders from the
original project when needed. Of course there are still companies which invest
in their own tools and engine where the ratio is closer to what you propose,
but that's rare. Now mostly big companies can afford to have their own core
engine division but in those big devs the amount of artists is even more
mindboggling because they are likely to in-house their cutscenes, voiceacting
etc.

All this works on the assumption that scripters are not coders which is
debatable.

~~~
BSousa
Well, I did leave the industry in 2008, but last 2 projects I worked on we
used Unreal Engine and the ratios for software developers vs everything else
(except publisher's people) were about those 30% I mentioned. We didn't have
many 'scripters', mainly some level designers that used Kismet and maybe a few
UnrealScript classes but apart from that, most was done in C++ by software
developers.

------
beloch
You've had critial success. You've made so much money you could retire, buy an
island, and still have enough left over to turn it into a supervillain lair! I
get it. You're only in it now for the love of creating, so why not leave the
headaches of A titles behind? This is perfectly sensible. Handing off
irrational to a protégé, taking your buddies and spinning off a smaller studio
would be a great way to do this. Firing half the company that brought you
success, however, is a bit of a dick move.

~~~
jimwalsh
Not really. Their last game (Infinite) was a flop (AAA game that only sold 4m
units). Take Two control the money, and with those kinds of results (huge team
of 300 something, that took six plus years to create Infinite) you can imagine
they weren't lining up to do another title. So Ken did what he could so that
some of the studio would stay alive.

~~~
scott_s
I disagree with your characterization of Bioshock Infinite as a "flop."
Usually, calling something a "flop" means that it was _wildly_ unsuccessful.
Infinite may not have re-couped its investment, but it was not wildly
unsuccessful. That would be selling under, say, 100,000 units.

(Keep in mind this is a semantic distinction, and not a value judgement of the
game itself.)

~~~
kosei
The last game that studio published was 6 years ago - Bioshock in 2007;
Bioshock 2 was shipped by another studio. If they had 100+ employees (not
unreasonable for a AAA game studio), they could have incurred personnel costs
of $60M+ for the game's development. Which could definitely be considered a
failure in the eyes of a game that only shipped 4MM games.

~~~
antimagic
Sure, but just look at the numbers - let's firstly boost the number to 300
employees, not 100, I think that's closer to real, with an everage salary of
around $60k. That puts salaries at about $180m. But, they sold 4 million
copies at about $60 each, which makes $240m profit. Allowing for a decent ad
spend, you're still looking at a back of the envelope break-even. OK, I get
that investors might be bummed about that, but it's enough money to mean that
they live to fight another day, have another crack at hitting it out of the
park.

As others have noted, AAA games are hit-based propositions. You pretty much
have a few (3-5) titles that make all of the money each year, another 10 or so
that hold the line, and everyone else loses. It's the last group that are
flops, the second group are the par result. I think we can safely say that
Bioshock Infinite was in the second group...

~~~
Shivetya
they certainly do not get the full 60 per copy. I am not sure what current
publishing deals are set at but I would be surprised if they even see 40

~~~
kosei
Yup. Usually I remember the rubric being about $30 back to the publisher on a
$60-$70 title. MS/Sony each take a cut and so does the distributor (Steam,
Wal-Mart, Best Buy, etc). Plus, as pointed out in comments below, there's also
the fact that not all copies were sold at full price. So you're looking AT
BEST at $120M in revenue, plus Irrational had TV ads and other large costs in
addition to their staffing.

------
Argorak
Irrational created some of my favorite games, because of the amount of thought
and attention to detail they poured into them. I loved most of them.

* SWAT 4: How cool is a multiplayer shooter where you actually have to breach a room from multiple sides to pressure the enemy into _not shooting_? And hold your guns until you saw any indication they would? We played that game for nights in one room for better communication.

* System Shock 2: Deeply flawed in some regards, but also the first game that creeped me out in a _perfectly well lit and bright environment_. Shodan, as always, was a great enemy.

* Freedom Force Series: A comic strategy game. It wasn't that hard (it wasn't easy, either), but had "comic" written all over the place. The description if you hovered the cursor over a mere building was "A proud participant of the Patriot City skyline." Someone put an ironic joke on the patriotic theme of the game in the description of a boring apartment block... How fun is that?

BioShock was a culmination of all that. Would you kindly pay them your
respect?

~~~
Mithaldu
> Would you kindly pay them your respect?

No, simply because Bioshock, while being wildly entertaining to many people,
was so at the cost of many of the good design choices made in the System Shock
games. Just see for example your note about the bright environments and
contrast with Bioshock.

(It also irks me a little that your post is missing just enough detail to make
it seem as if they made SS2, instead of being co-creators under the lead of
Looking Glass.)

~~~
Argorak
Well, the whole Irrational Games/Looking Glass thing is a messy one, so I
decided to skip that for the sake of an eulogy. I see Irrational as a
successor to Looking Glass, although I would prefer LG to be still existing.

I am split whether Bioshock threw away too much or just enough from System
Shock 2. At my first playthrough, I was on the edge about this. The "would you
kindly" scene cought me as off-guard as the Shodan reveal in SS2, so I forgive
Bioshock a lot in the story department. It was definitely the more polished
game in many regards.

SS2 is hard to play nowadays and some things (like the ghosts) just really
didn't work in hindsight. Also, the crafting and inventory-tetris didn't
really add to the game. There is a lot in it that could be removed for good.
On the other hand, SS2 stood at a time where those things hadn't been properly
tried yet and is a good example of a game that has to be commended for trying
out new things. And damn, was it great to actually explore the story.

I heard a (german) podcast about old games a while ago where one of the
podcasters said that he thinks that gamers in the 90s had more tolerance for
games trying something and failing, because it was such a rapidly evolving
medium.

Perhaps, Bioshock was the System Shock for the 2000s and us old-school gamers
wanted it to be something that relentlessly tries out things just as in the
old times.

Still, Bioshock is light-years ahead in story-telling and world-building than
most games of that era. "Would you kindly" is a great example: It shows that
the game was built around a narrative and not around a series of set pieces.

~~~
the_af
What do you mean the ghosts in SS2 "didn't work"? I thought they were pure
genius -- and they scared the crap out of me the first times they appeared.

------
mjn
Kind of a strange letter, especially given that Irrational Games is a
subsidiary of Take Two. It makes it sound like Irrational is doing great, and
Ken Levine just wants to try something different. But if that were the case,
demolishing Irrational to try his new thing doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It'd be more sensible for him to just leave Irrational, starting a new
endeavor (either another subsidiary under Take-Two, or his own independent
thing), and leaving Irrational intact.

Possible explanations include: 1) there is _not_ as much success going on at
Irrational as implied; 2) Ken Levine is just really attached to the name, and
so wouldn't let it continue in present form while he leaves to do something
else under a new name; 3) ...?

~~~
millerc
I'd bet on 3) Levine isn't interested in just "more of the same", and his
mission (Irrational's) is to create. I'm sure someone else can license the
names and characters if what they want is "more of the same".

Best of luck to the new team, looking forward to awesome stuff...

~~~
mjn
If that's true, then it'd make Ken Levine just an asshole. If he wants to
leave and do something different, fine, but why set the building on fire on
your way out? It doesn't require firing a successful team for _you_ to go do
something different, plenty of people leave successful companies to start
something new.

My _guess_ , though, is that he didn't actually make that choice and was told
by Take-Two to downsize, and this is him pretending it was a voluntary
"creative" decision, like politicians who want to spend more time with their
family.

~~~
danudey
The other possibility is that the 15 people he's taking with him are part of
the company's top-tier leadership/talent; creative directors, art directors,
etc. Maybe taking those 15 people is cutting off the head of the snake, and
there's no one left to steer the ship after they're gone.

------
hawkharris
This isn't the end...

Irrational Games will enter the waters of baptism, and a new studio will be
born. An infinite number of Irrational Games studios are opening and closing
at this moment, like lighthouses on an ever-expanding ocean. The only
difference between past and present is semantics.

If what I'm saying sounds crazy, you owe it to yourself to play Bioshock
Infinite. It's without a doubt one of the most beautiful and surreal games
ever created.

~~~
vacri
And despite the infinite number of Irrational Games studies opening and
closing, for some reason they only ever make two games... a strange limitation
on 'infinity'.

~~~
einhverfr
> And despite the infinite number of Irrational Games studies opening and
> closing, for some reason they only ever make two games... a strange
> limitation on 'infinity'.

Let's call those two games, "pi" and "e" while we are at it.

------
ChuckMcM

       > we will focus exclusively on content delivered digitally. 
    

Another one bites the dust. Sad to see irrational closing up but agree that 17
years is a long time for anything. My hope is that he isn't out to build the
next candy crush thing.

~~~
Zikes
That doesn't mean they're going mobile, just that they don't want to answer to
a publisher.

------
zacinbusiness
I truly understand not wanting to do "more of the same" after 17 years (I do
something different nearly every day). But I really hate it for their
developers and artists. Having only ever played the original Bioshock (which
was beyond amazing to me), I know that at least the senior devs and artists
have the chops to get hired somewhere new, or to start their own companies.
But the jr. guys might have a tough time.

------
venomsnake
It was expected. Probably he got fed up with modern publishing and Bioshock
Infinite didn't do that great either - the 2 Bioshocks were on the verge of
greatness, but it slipped from their hand mostly due to publisher interference
(like not releasing modding tools and shipping with encrypted and signed
content packs) when all of the community was begging for them. Bioshock has
the potential to be the pre skyrim skyrim ...

And bioshock infinite was threading on too safe ground. I really hope that his
new studio will have bursts of creativity and success and the left out
employees find better jobs soon.

~~~
smacktoward
_> the 2 Bioshocks were on the verge of greatness, but it slipped from their
hand mostly due to publisher interference (like not releasing modding tools
and shipping with encrypted and signed content packs)_

I dunno about that -- what always seemed to me to be holding the Bioshocks
back from greatness was that they were designed around a gameplay mechanism
(FPS running and gunning) that clashed pretty severely with the type of game
the designers seemed to want badly to make, namely an interactive story. The
result was a sort of schizophrenia: Irrational would build these incredible
environments and characters, and then stick them in the exact type of game
where players couldn't linger over and savor them. They were just a blur that
would flash past your gunsights as you killed people.

This problem was so evident in the Bioshock games that they led people smarter
than I am to eventually coin a term for it: "ludonarrative dissonance" (see
[http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludona...](http://clicknothing.typepad.com/click_nothing/2007/10/ludonarrative-d.html)).
Which basically means a game whose story is trying to do one thing while its
mechanics are trying to do something completely different, pulling the player
in incompatible directions. That -- and Irrational's seeming lack of interest
in reconciling the two elements in their work -- always seemed like a bigger
factor holding them back from greatness than their relative lack of
moddability, at least to me.

~~~
wilg
I agree - the BioShock games are great in theory but have a hugely messy
execution.

One of my favorite articles about Infinite is this one where it's argued that
it's the worst game of the year: [http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-
reviews/](http://tevisthompson.com/on-videogame-reviews/)

~~~
scott_s
Agreed with you and smacktoward. Tevis' analysis gave me a lot to think about
after playing the game, but during my play, I was nonplussed regarding the
character arcs between Booker and Elizabeth, and the constant, brutal
violence.

------
exgamebiz
There's a misconception that BioShock Infinite was a massive hit. It had the
kind of budget that needed to sell 3+, maybe even 4+, million units to break
even. It sold 4 million, but a lot of those were at discounted prices or via
Steam sales. Remember, it took five years with a large team and had a premium
marketing budget. I'm going to guess about $80-100 million prior to marketing.

Also, the crunch time was horrendous for much of the project. The project
churned through people who left bitter and burned out.

I'm not sayin' BI is a bad game, but this isn't the story of a well-managed
studio.

------
dave_sullivan
Man, these guys made some great games.

    
    
        > To make narrative-driven games for the core gamer that are highly replayable.
    

Candy crush with a story it is... Or less cynically, a totally awesome RPG
with procedurally generated storylines so no playthrough is ever the same?

~~~
arrrg
I’m really not sure why _anyone_ would be thinking _that_. That way of
thinking makes no sense at all in this instance.

During the last years there have been many indie games with a strong narrative
focus. His mission statement together with his actions (small team, digital
distribution) fits more with that than free to play mobile only games.

It seems to me as though Ken Levine saw that he was making very narrative
focused games (Bioshock Infinite in particular) with a side dish of shooting
for that AAA appeal. Maybe he also saw all the indie developers making games
with narrative focus who were not afraid of getting rid of such AAA trappings
altogether because with digital distribution everyone can reach their niche
and make sustainable amounts of money.

Ken Levine is obviously not going all the way, but he is going pretty far with
the downscaling (and it’s always worth to talk about whether he has gone the
right way). AAA development gets you some nice things (God Only Knows sung by
a barbershop quartet, for example) but comes with its own set of restrictions
(you have to go for mass appeal) and when you want to make something smaller
and more focused that doesn’t appeal to everyone then there’s lots to be said
for getting smaller.

(During the last few years we have seen the middle fall out from game
development, with mid-sized developers and publishers going under. It seems
that this gap is now filled from the bottom and the top, with former AAA
developers scaling down and successful indie developers – Jonathan Blow with
The Witness, Mike Bithell with Volume, … – scaling up.)

There is whole diverse and crazy world below AAA titles. Some of those games
are awful, but some are awesome. There is lots that can be done. And lots of
cool things that are done.

Why would you think of Candy Crush first? Especially the mention of the
narrative focus makes me think of many excellent (and successful!) recent
indie titles that also had a strong narrative focus: Stanley Parable, Gone
Home, Kentucky Route Zero, …

It seems to me that Ken Levine has something like that in mind plus his own
game mechanics twist (the highly repayable part, whatever that means),
certainly not some free to play mobile only bullshit.

------
minimaxir
This is likely correlated with the absurd sales Bioshock Infinite received
after release. (Down from $60 to $20 less than 6 months after release). They
probably needed money.

~~~
bhouston
RE: Quick price drop over 6 months.

I think every game does that these days. There usually are fairly official
numbers for sales of video games as it is a highly mature market. What are the
real sales numbers?

Here they are:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_Infinite#Sales](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BioShock_Infinite#Sales)

I suspect they budget was insanely high for the game though, so they needed
not just a blockbuster, but a massive one.

~~~
officemonkey
>I think every game does that these days.

Bioshock dropped pretty quick, IIRC. I remember picking it up on special
during the Steam Summer Sale for $19.99. It was less than six months after
release.

~~~
minimaxir
A 66% sale within 6 months for an AAA game is rare. (usually it's 33% max)

However, I got Battlefield 4 for $20 in less than a month after release, so
it's possible that's the new norm.

~~~
ericdykstra
The Last of Us has been out since June, and is still over $40 (down from $60)
no matter where you look. I don't think it's the new standard to discount
games that heavily.

------
lectrick
I don't know if anyone from Irrational Games is watching this, but from an
oldish gamer, thank you so much for your creative and entertaining efforts
over the years and I wish you all the best in your next adventures.

------
david_otoole
I had the privilege of working at IG for a few years back during the SWAT4 /
FFV3R / Bioshock 1 days, when the people who made System Shock 2 were largely
still there.

It's sad to see the name being retired, but it's better than seeing the name
ruined by a flop or diluted by endless sequels.

The announcement is pretty opaque---I expect the rumor mill to churn for
awhile.

------
Eric_WVGG
This is great news for fans of Ken Levine.

I just finished Bioshock Infinite a couple weeks ago, and I was left feeling
weirdly angry. It was a great story, shoehorned into a mediocre shooter. All
of the problems with Bioshock were amplified. Which was necessary; in order to
justify that kind of budget, they needed to make a game that would sell to the
lowest-common-denominator.

Hating on Bioshock Infinite is a bit like criticizing a Hollywood blockbuster
for being dumbed-down. What did dummies like me expect?

“To make narrative-driven games for the core gamer that are highly
replayable.” This is what fans of System Shock and Bioshock have been
clamoring for. Set free of Take Two's blockbuster expectations, Levin will be
free to deliver it.

------
mariusmg
This is really fishy (the whole situation and the studio closure).

First of all Irrational Games is (wholly) owned by Take Two. So only Take Two
decides what happens with the studio. From the statement i guess they decided
that is "less bad" if Levine steps up and says they "wind down" instead of
Take 2 announcing they close the studio. Basically PR damage.

Regarding the reason....looking at their output it seems they had it coming.
After the original Bioshock (2007) they took 6 (!!) years to release Infinite
(and even that was codeveloped with 2K Australia). The financial losses must
have been pretty big.

------
uchi
For those not in the knowhow, BioShock Infinite was in development for a very
long time. Work began on the game in 2008 and the first public announcement of
the project was made in 2010. One developer when interviewed at polygon was
quoted as saying that they culled enough content to make five or six games. E3
footage of the game over the years (and hell, even tv commercials of the
game,) have nothing in common with the final released product with the sole
exception of Columbia as a setting and different character versions of
Elizabeth and Booker.

as soon as I get to a PC I will post sources

------
deletes
_my passion has turned to making a different kind of game than we’ve done
before. To meet the challenge ahead, I need to refocus my energy on a smaller
team with a flatter structure and a more direct relationship with gamers. In
many ways, it will be a return to how we started: a small team making games
for the core gaming audience._

I just read that as; we are gonna make an even more narative based System
Shock 2 equivalent.

------
b0rsuk
This is why I've backed 9 Kickstarter games already. It may not be perfect,
but I'm not a part of the problem anymore. Traditional publishers put the
carriage before the horse. They use money earned by Game 11 to fuel Game 12.
When you're buying a game you like, you're NOT paying for its production
costs. You're paying for its _sequel_ production costs.

Kickstarter success is reputation/prototype based. You need either a great
reputation or a great prototype. It's essentially a form of grant. Many of the
games which succeed will ultimately fail in the "fun" sense. Yet I'm convinced
that, as broken as AAA publishers are, throwing dice gives me a better chance.

Check out board games. There's big innovation and it's entirely game mechanic
based.

------
winslow
Well this is sad. I've been thoroughly impressed with Bioshock Infinite's
gameplay, plot, story, AI, art, and attention to detail. Hopefully the
artists/devs/writers will find another position elsewhere.

I wonder what happened. It sounds like Bioshock Infinite didn't bring in the
cash they thought it would? Reminds me of Ensemble Studios closing after
AoE:III and Halo Wars.

------
troymc
Can someone here translate "core gamer" and "core gaming audience" for me?
Those phrases mean nothing to me.

~~~
sesqu
Wikipedia has a brief section on this[1], but essentially it means "buys on
release". It's the people who follow reviewers and industry news, spread word-
of-mouth, play for dozens of hours, but don't demand features that would drive
other customers away.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Core_gamer](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gamer#Core_gamer)

------
shrnky
Ok, time to call most of you out. Why's this company different? When nameless
corporations lay everyone off I usually here how broken capitalism is and how
huge companies are evil, etc., but in this case I see more people trying to
rationalize it.

------
leonatan
Sad to see them go. Their latest games weren't as good as their early ones
(too much shooting), but still sad. Hope to see Levine involved in a project
soon.

------
grogenaut
Surprised at the lack of hate for Ken at this dick move.

------
wnevets
I cant forgive them for tribes vengeance.

~~~
floody-berry
In their defense, T:V was mostly Thrax' doing and Irrational were just an
unfortunate contractor. Even still, they did butcher just about every mechanic
in the game.

------
b0rsuk
I realize I'm promoting board games to the wrong people - to people who've
already been trained to expect the same things from 'games' as from movies -
but you should take a closer look at board games.

Outside of computer/console 'game' industry, games are rules. You distinguish
two games by their rules. "How do you play it ?" is the question you need to
ask. In video 'game' world, "game" has become an umbrella term for: \-
stories, \- simulations, \- puzzles, \- actual multiplayer games, \-
playgrounds/toys (Minecraft, MMO...)

Basically any interactive software that is used for entertainment is called a
game these days. I guess vlc also meets the criteria, after all you can use it
to watch porn.

There's a parallel between Test Driven Development and board games. Today,
computer games have become so complex and have so many moving parts that they
have more in common with simulations than board games they largely came from.
This is because you no longer understand all or even most of its RULES.
Computer is kind enough to calculate everything for you. You don't know why a
fireball deals 23 damage or why your city suffers an epidemic. It could be
because it's scripted that way, because something gives it a +20% bonus (added
before or after X ? Is it actually +20% or * 1.2 ? Wording is ofter
ambiguous). The player is only expected to move around in a world and bump
into things. Often the quickest way to learn a game is to try it. Learn the
way children learn languages - not by memorizing grammar rules, but by
practicing.

Why TDD ? It is often claimed that in Test Driven Development, you write tests
before you write code. THEN you write minimal code to pass those tests. By
definition, you have practically 100% test coverage, which can be nice.

By definition, you know all the rules of a board game. The rules tell you how
and when move pieces, cards, tokens around.

Modding and house rules is rampant in board game world. It happens even
accidentally - when you fail to learn rules correctly, and later decide it's
more fun that way. It's absolutel fine to play with "wrong" rules if all
players agree to do it beforehand. Board game players often make their
expansions, variants, prettier game art.

\--------------

Fun fact: "Sacrifice" spell in Heroes of Might and Magic 3 is widely
considered one of worst spells in the game. Sacrifice a unit to resurrect
another one ? Load game, I wasted so many resources on level5 guild!!

Unless you know the formula, which is NOT specified in the game. Then you can
produce a table like this:
[http://wstaw.org/m/2012/12/05/imps_1.png](http://wstaw.org/m/2012/12/05/imps_1.png)

With a modest investment (3 skill points and growth bonus building), you can
sacrifice 1 week worth of imps(level1) to resurrect 2 weeks worth of
Archdevils (level7). Assuming you get the guild, it all comes early enough to
be relevant in a cutthroat multiplayer game. And it gets better and better as
the game progresses, because unlike with most spells the effect doesn't
increase in a logarithmic fashion (experience levels), but with troop counts.

This is not good. This is devastating. The huge discrepancy between the
perceived value of the spell and its actual value is due to bad documentation
and hidden rules. It is extremely common for computer games to contain hidden,
unexplained rules.

~~~
herokusaki
> Today, computer games have become so complex and have so many moving parts
> that they have more in common with simulations than board games they largely
> came from.

> By definition, you know all the rules of a board game. The rules tell you
> how and when move pieces, cards, tokens around.

Your comment doesn't mention table-top RPGs, and it seems to me that it's
them, rather than simulations, that modern computer games are closer to. In a
table-top RPG the players are often not expected to know or understand all the
rules and "moving parts" of the game. The GM is also free to decide to bend
the rules if he or she thinks it would enhance the experience for the players.

------
johnny635
Get out of the gaming industry while you still can. Otherwise, you'll be
looking at getting out of the software industry in no time.

~~~
winslow
Care to elaborate a little bit?

~~~
Goosey
Can not speak for the grandparent post, but sharing my own experience here
going from AAA game development to 'serious games' (DARPA contracted training
simulators) to web development I've got to agree with them (with a caveat).

Each step away from games has lead to more sane company environments and
higher proportional incentives. The reality of games is that programmers are
underpaid in comparison to other industries. If a web programmer with X years
of experience can command a salary of Y you can expect a game programmer with
X years of experience to command approximately 2/3 * Y. Exact same
geographical region.

In return for being underpaid you will encounter far more 'crunch time'. I was
fortunate in prioritizing this concern in the companies I chose to work for,
but many of my friends in the AAA games industry have become completely used
to working 10 hour days, 6 days a week, for 3-6 months straight at a time.
Every. Single. Fucking. Year. Around July is when it begins; holiday launch
schedules being the driving factor.

On top of this, as illustrated in TFA, even if your game is a huge success you
have extremely little job security. Saying the industry is entirely hit driven
is actually missing the point; the issue is most AAA game studios are
essentially huge, expensive, single-focus (and usually single-project)
consultancies. Even if you have a success the lions share of the returns is
going to go to the publisher and you are immediately back to pitching to the
publisher to keep the lights turned on.

So why is it this way? IMHO there are two main reasons.

The first is because AAA titles are ridiculously expensive now. Internally
financing one is completely out of the capabilities of any studio at this
point. In the past it was possible to save from a good success and self-
finance the next: no way now. In the past it was possible for a rag-tag group
of passionate developers to have a AAA breakaway success. Impossible now.

The second is because it's something lots of people dream of doing. The only
sane reason to work in games is the exact reason most people who work in games
continue to work in games: they love it. They love games. They love the tech
in games (which, compared to the CRUD factories the vast majority of
programming gigs outside of games, is really fucking awesome). They are
following the advice of 'do what you love' and paying for it. Because there
are TONS of other people that also love it.

It's stunning the amount of turnover in the games industry. 5 years of
experience is senior. 10 years is old school veteran. Because people burn out
and leave. Because there is an endless supply of less experienced cheaper
developers to fill in the gaps.

The answer 'go indie' is just naive. For every indie success there are ungodly
numbers of complete failures and you can no longer twist the knobs of a
publisher's titan AAA marketing machine to stack the deck. Going indie is
doing a startup which is impossible to fund and which has no hope or
aspirations of Facebook level success. It is a giant success in the indie game
world is to be successful enough to just support yourselves! It is something
to be done by those with the love and passion for doing so for the reason of
having the love and passion of doing so. It's never a rational decision from a
purely financial point of view. I have the utmost respect and admiration for
those who follow this path precisely for this reason.

The games industry is an entertainment industry. It's more apt to compare game
developers to musicians or actors or writers in the way the economics operate.
It's not a business; it never will be. And honestly, I do miss it.

~~~
eliah-lakhin
Very clear explanation. Thank you, Goosey!

How do you think is it possible that one day Web Development (generally
speaking, industry of Internet startups) may fall into the same gap? There are
a lot of guys around who enjoy Web programming very much. Fortunately, we have
a lot of job opportunities, and work conditions look good. But I fear how long
will it be.

