Games are not simple products. Except for AAA titles (which are often the gaming equivalent of the annual superhero movie) games need something special, some soul to be successfull. Without dedicated team pouring some of their personality into the game this will not happen.

This is why I still play many older AAA games, yet only a few current AAA games, though my machine has enough HP for any current title. Yet current indie games often have this extra, and are on my menu.

You can run a game factory like this, but this inflates the product line on the long run. Only managers will stay, and ideas will not blossom, only the management will execute the same reciepes over and over, and eventually customers will not come without insane sales campaigns.

I do not understand why AAA would be lumped together in such a soulless bag. Like superhero movies, some are done by the numbers, some are done without inspiration, some without talent, and yet some are brimming with soul, passion and dedication. That outcome is usually defined by their leaders and context; AAA games, blockbuster movies, and large productions in general, by nature don't let most of the individual developers' souls show visibly in the final product, but that soul is very much in there.

"Many older AAA games yet only a few current AAA games" I suspect is more due to rose-tinted glasses and survivor bias. There was plenty of crap back then, and plenty of greatness today.

Because when people say AAA, often they are talking about the cookie-cutter, churn-it-out yearly titles, like FIFA and Madden and Call of Duty.

The other comparison with Hollywood is the unrelenting sequelitis. It's even reached the point now where game developers are planning trilogies from the start, like StarCraft II and Medieval Total War: Warhammer.

When I hear most people say AAA, they tend to mean "big budget" (which usually implies fancy graphics, big musical scores, voice acting, mocap etc -- things that lower budget games can't afford).

Is there any reason to believe this 'soul' you're talking about has to come from the programmers? It's not clear to me that the designers of the game, and the programmers of that design, have any overlap in people -- and just because the programmers get replaced by contractors, it's not clear that the designers do, as well.

In the past games were made less like manufaturies with everybody polishing an itsy-little-bit of the product. In the past, when games were smaller teams were more crossfunctional: programmers also were somewhat designers, and the game manufacturing was less of a process involving silos.

That doesn't really answer his question. In today's world, if you hired passionate designers and outsourced talented (but not necessarily passionate) programmers, wouldn't you still end up with a quality game?

I would argue that having the designer put the "heart and soul" into a game is possible, but not ideal. When an artist or developer is also a/the designer they can make changes and decisions more smoothly to create certain effects.

There is no way a game like the first Portal could have been designed by a game designer, it started as a research project by a developer. Then there are games that do very innovative with the art blending it seamlessly into the design in unconventional ways, like Antechamber. I think there are plenty examples of games that buck the mold too hard for a conventional designer to have been able to make them.

My favorite example is Minecraft and its procedurally generated infinite world, much of the art is in algorithms that create the biomes. Cresting the top of a mountain to see the scenery on the other side for the first time is so simple to do and easy to enjoy in this game. The programmer had to be the designer and the artist to pull this off. I know Notch worked with others but this one facet had to be singular or iterative, not communicated from someone seperate after "designing". This was communicated in code and programmers and artist saw what existed and tried to build something and sharing. There is no good way for a conventional designer to convey the details of an algorithm to build forests and cave systems. It is not a fundamentally unsolvable problem, it is just presently unsolved in my experience.

"if you hired passionate designers and outsourced talented (but not necessarily passionate) programmers, wouldn't you still end up with a quality game?"

Perhaps, for certain types of games. But for many types of games there's this subtle overlap between design and programming that defines how the game "feels" to play.

eg. How do digital/analog sampled inputs exactly map to character movement and camera control.

This is an area where having a small core group that understands the technology at play but also has a handle on the design side of how to implement for "fun" can be a huge difference maker.

From a high level design point of view, most action "platform" games have basically the same controls. But anyone who has played, say, Nintendo's Mario games versus most other platform games realizes there is some special sauce in the "feel" of the character movement that is equal parts design and programming/low-level-implementation that wouldn't get conveyed properly in a higher level outsource-ready design document.

This is what I tried to express. You can get a quality game. But you may not get a game that people will love, will replay to discover nice little things. The game will be like a movie you watch only once. You pay for it. You get a decent product. You are happy, but you won't feel that itch to take a look at it again. Or you may, but the chances are slimmer in my opinion.

Isn't that kind of what happened with Daikatana?

I agree with the parent comment, but also agree that "soul" could come from writing, voice talent, assets, etc. Deus Ex and Mass Effect are two games I can think of that offer an amazing experience, despite the actual programmed game being fairly shallow. They were unique and well written, which was enough.

Indeed, but I find that large games which try to tell stories may be well written, but are not so appealing to me as smaller (often indie) games.

If I want to be told stories I usually prefer books, films. (Though I liked Baldur's Gate for eg. which is an opposite of what I usually prefer)

Games are a "hits business", like movies and music. People mostly have predictable, conventional interests. If you don't want to be a one-hit wonder, you must continue to provide what the audience is demanding.

Many game makers mistakenly conflate any kind of success with an endorsement of their game creation skills and assume it will transfer. If the next product doesn't hit the necessary behavioral hooks, it's going to fail, no matter how well your first or main product was received.

Just as in movies and music, the big players rehash the same stuff over and over again because it sells. The dividends from these formulaic products pay for the small fraction of experimental/non-formulaic ("soulful") projects, which typically lose money.

The newest AAA game I have bought in the past few years was Fallout 4 and even though I bought it in November, I still haven't installed it yet.

A few weeks ago, I started another new game of Carrier Command.

It's still the same game it was more than 25 years ago when I first started playing but I'm not the same gamer that I used to be so this play-through is much different.

I can't imagine that most of today's AAA titles will still be enjoyable in 25 years. Madden or NBA 2K17 aren't going to have people re-playing them. The Fallout Series probably will but most won't. I'm going to be an old guy again but these games don't feel like someone poured their heart and soul into them the way the old ones did.

You're describing exactly what is happening.

Take a look at the release list for the last year, it's sequel sequel sequel.

Once in a blue moon a new IP comes, and people drop their pants like it's the second coming, forgetting that this is how the games industry used to be.

Well, in general this is true of entertainment - the best usually has that "little extra special bit of love" injected into it, and when something is a pet project, it shows, even if the end result isn't good. This happens a lot with movies, and it's probably why the comparisons between games and movies are so common; for larger productions in both mediums, no matter what you do you have to treat it like a somewhat industrial process due to the sheer number of people required for each production. A smaller team can of course have a more personal touch, but this usually means longer release times and more limited resources.

A lot of the time it just really depends on the motivation behind the director. Keep in mind that some of Nintendo's most successful games were from simple observations on the parts of their creator, like Miyamoto watching ants while he was gardening and coming up with the basic concept for Pikmin. Most yearly release games will suffer just because they are yearly release games. Same with yearly release movies.

I was wondering if someone was going to make the comparison to movies as movies are almost entirely crewed by contractors.

The difference might be that the contractors in the film and TV industry are all union.

As a former member of the Cinematographer's Guild (Local 600) I can assure you that the unionization is both culturally strong and plays an important role in workplace safety. Movie sets are dangerous places: explosions, heavy equipment, high powered lights and electrical cords all around...

There was a distinct jump in professionalism (and acknowledgement of safety) when I started working union shoots vs non-union.

I'm sympathetic to the game developers, but unionization has been pretty strong eroded outside of traditionally hazardous occupations.

Really? My experience with contractors(both in and out of gaming industry) is that they do the bare minimum required to keep the contract and still take 5-10x the daily wage of an employee. Employees(in my experience) usually care about the games they make, while contractors couldn't give any less damn about the project they work on, they are happy to switch with a days notice.

It's a mixed bag. Many very talented engineers become contractors because they get sick of low pay, company politics, and the fact they get treated like a cog. So instead they embrace the cog concept and get paid well at the same time. These contractors will tend to care and do a really great job. On the other hand, you have the scabs that become contractors soley because it pays well - and also because generally it's easier to get hired as a contractor (less strict hiring process since it is a fixed contract length). That kind of person gives contractors a bad name. I've seen some of the worst and some of the best developers as contractors.

This is even more pronounced in the UK where permanent employee pay is very low, compared to contractor pay. Generally the best engineers all end up becoming either contractors or go into finance where they can get paid well. And unfortunately the engineers who could never get employed as a perm employee also become contractors.

I agree... but, your reputation matters. In this city (Manchester), everyone talks. You won't last long as contractor if you're rubbish.

And even if you managed to get in somewhere I imagine you'd be found out and binned pretty quickly.

In London at least, my impression is the demand is so great that many places are desperate enough to hire anyone with x years of tech (usually Java) on their CV, with usually just a screening by a non technical manager. It could be this is changing though, especially with increased supply after the recent IR35 changes in the public sector. And usually, these are not the kind of places good contractors want to work anyways.

I don't think most people are suggesting that these former employees turned contractors would be rubbish. Just that they aren't willing to put up with the BS of "going the extra mile" or whatever without being paid for it.

I've never seen contractors care less, there can be issues of not understanding the context which can affect their work or people's perception, and certainly employees can feel insecure with contractors. But the reality is that the game wouldn't ship without them, that's why they're there.

So why do employers pay 5-10x for contractors?

Because they can be hired and fired at will, while an employee(at least where I work) has to be given at least 3 months notice, a severance package mandated by law, and they can sue for unfair dismissal. Plus you have to pay healthcare, pension fund and other benefits, plus they are entitled to 25 days of paid holiday a year plus unlimited paid sick leave. And finally, it's hard to find someone willing to become an employee for just 3-6 months required to finish a product. That's where contractors come in - they are much quicker to hire, they are much quicker to let go, and healtcare,pension, holidays is their responsibility. So to companies they can be worth the 5-10x what they would pay an employee for the same amount of work.

I'm not sure about that 3-6 months contracts. I know few contractors and they've been working couple of years for the same position. So I'm not sure how this model can be beneficial for company. To make the picture more unclear, those contractors wouldn't like to switch to permanent position!

Well at least in the UK if you are a contractor I would say it's typical to take 500-600 pounds a day. Plus if you are self employed you can expense a lot of things that you can't as a regular employee - petrol, part of mortgage/rent, computer for work etc etc etc. Sure, you have to do your own taxes and pay your own national insurance, but overall you can be taking a lot more money home than an employee, so it's no surprise to me that people like being contractors and wouldn't convert to employees even if they were offered a permanent position.

edit: "typical" for a mid-to-senior level programmer contractor. A "contractor" doing QC in games will not take anywhere near as much.

500-600 is a typical London rate. Outside London 300-400 is more likely.

That's still at least 2x the take-home on even the highest paying permanent roles outside of London.

Bear in mind that permie roles usually include pension, private healthcare, sick pay & holiday allowance. So the total comp from the permie role goes beyond the take home.

45 weeks * 5 days * £300 = £67,500

Outside London as a senior dev you might expect £45k full-time + pension + benefits.

So definitely not at least 2x.

45 weeks is kinda the rule of thumb of contractors, as you don't get paid hols or sick days.

That's true. But 45 weeks * 5 days * £400 = £90,000

500 * 200 days = 100k of income.

100k is definitely not twice what you get as a permie in London.

No, I said it's twice what you'd get outside of London.

Well, the 500 is consulting rate for inside London. The comparison doesn't stand then.

No, it's £300-400 per day outside London. Which at the top end is literally twice a permanent salary of £45k

As an average web dev, I've seen £350~£400 in London

I've long worked in banking, so the 500-600 I look for with London roles assumes trading systems knowledge. So I agree, outside banking rates will be lower. FYR I'm currently working a six month C++ Windows MFC gig in Gloucestershire at 365/day. I'll be heading back into London at the end of May though...

Got offered a Delphi contractor role last week for £800/day but required travelling and fixed deadline.

I can't speak about gaming but for more general contracting the multiplier is 1.75 - 2.5x of a normal employee's salary

There are a lot of reasons why employers hire contractors, some more valid than others.

In my limited experience, it's rarely worth it, mostly because the relevant processes are never in place to ensure that loads of knowledge doesn't walk away with the contractor at the end of the contract

edit:

Should clarify that I'm in the UK.

"There are a lot of reasons why employers hire contractors, some more valid than others."

Could you elaborate on that, please? Thanks in advance!

Off the top of my head I know that contractors don't get benefits such as holidays, pensions and other employee benefits.

Their contracts have an expiration so they're easier to get rid of on short notice.

Also they are treated as capital expenditure versus operational expenditure. And I believe that you can do some accounting that is beneficial tax wise to a company.

This is a UK perspective.

Yep, those are the reasons in the US also.

One that isn't mentioned much is avoiding corporate overhead costs, which I found interesting when I learned about it.

Basically some big companies charge their divisions fees for upkeep of facilities, paying the finance team salaries, etc based on the number of employees in the division.

So if you can have ten employees you are only on the hook for $1M/year in corp fees even though you actually have three "consultants" sharing desks with every employee for years-at-a-time. If you added the consultants to the employee roles then you would become a 50 person division, owing $5M/year to the home office.

---

The CAPEX vs OPEX thing is a big driver too, of course, but there are definitely ways to classify employees, at least partially, as capex.

It's why you can make an exempt employee fill out a timesheet to charge back projects which you have put into the capex group.

A few jobs ago my group was told to find 80% capex or find new jobs. Most fridays were spent negotiating with project managers in tasks-for-hours swaps.

On demand labour

On demand skills

higher skillset

misallocation of internal resources

internal politics

hanging on to yearly budgets

I could probably think of a few more

Some of the above are perceived by PHBs types as there is always a finite pool of people with the skillset that is needed for the job at the skill level required etc...

Many reasons, at big companies employees require a lot of red tape so it's a way around it, you may need a specific skill set for a short period of time, or just a large volume of work to get done at peak. If they're good, the person may not want to be an employee, I see that all the time.

I think that 5-10x is rare, but 2-3x is common. The reasoning is that the actual cost of an employee is 3-5x their actual pay. There is insurance, taxes, more insurance, benefits, workspace (which some contractors will need as well), office supplies, computer, etc. All that adds up.

I see where you're coming from but;

> The guy poured his heart and soul into the project and was vested way beyond a paycheck

... so it's kinda sad when productivity isn't the reason.

if you're a contractor being ask to do things out of your remit seems like a loss maker to an employer. but when you're salaried they tend to think they know you and give you things outside of your job spec more readily.

> I think employees tend to think that culture is what they're there for instead of producing IP

Yeah, how dare they...