Is there something to be worried about here with the Unreal Engine being the only big business in town in terms of indie game development for 3d game engines?
I mean obviously yes, but how worried should we be of this becoming a bottleneck?
Godot has been making leaps and bounds. Obviously not close to UE, but if it maintains its rate of improvement, I can see it becoming a more and more common choice in the indie space over the next few years
Nah, it definitely is, in fact I have noticed a disconcerting number of indie games I REALLY like especially 3d games with physics engines are on the unreal engine.
I have always been a massive fan of at least the creative output of projects on the unreal engine, I don’t know much about the politics and details around how it is to actually create games on the unreal engine or anything though. I just don’t trust Epic honestly or whoever owns them now or rather I don’t trust the incentive structure… but yeah I wish the unreal engine success I am just asking how people see the state of similar engines in this moment.
“That being said, I want to call out the way Unity chose to communicate these layoffs. Receiving a 5am email from ‘noreply@unity’ informing me that my role was being ‘eliminated’ and that I’d lose system access by the end of the day felt completely abrupt and impersonal. Unity must do better in how they treat their workers in hard times like this.”
Oh the irony, they are almost there. Trying to appeal to empathy and humanity of a corporation in the same breath that they acknowledge the lack of it.
There is no humane nature intrinsic in corporations. People need to stop humanizing it. Treat it like It is, know that you are being taken advantage of, you are being squeased, extracted of every value you can give and then discarted.
Their piece of shit CEO, Lars Wingefors, was in discussion with a gulf national fund on a huge $2 billion investment.
He never got anything legally binding, but before securing the investment he went on a massive spending spree.
The national fund got cold feet and Wingefors had to cut up all of Embracer to account for his mistake.
You would think such a childish error would result in immediate dismissal and essentially a permanent blacklisting from executive positions (not only in the gaming industry).
Nothing like that happened, I believe the Embracer board is full of his friends and family. He just went with it.
This is the kind of stuff that shows that polemics around hard works and meritocracy are at least partially propaganda to keep the plebs in line.
Embracer is also splitting into three separate companies to shed the tainted Embracer name, all still owned and run by Wingefors of course.
Asmodee Group (for board games) and Coffee Stain Publishing (for indie games) are the only two with official names last I heard. The unnamed third is the big one and Embracer’s direct successor, but I guess they’re delaying naming it to minimize bad press associated with the new name.
Not a surprise. Anything this company touches is sinking. These giant gaming conglomerates don’t make an iota of business sense. The whole point of a conglomerate buying a whole bunch of similar businesses, aka horizontal integration, is so these businesses can share the same knowledge, infrastructure and supply lines and benefit from economies of scale to lower costs. Like an oil conglomerate using their own tankers to transport oil for all their subsidiaries. But in the gaming industry there is barely any overlap between two studios where synergy can happen. Except for the business admin, promotion and advertising side. But that is a tiny fraction of the costs of big budget production. The biggest cost is on the production side and every studio needs their own set of directors, producers, designers, artists, programmers etc. Another goal of horizontal integration is capturing market share, but with games you run the risk of cannibalizing your own sales especially how Embracer is doing it since most studios in their portfolio are from the same region in the world making games for similar markets.
EA and Ubisoft tried this before and failed miserably and they sold or shuttered almost every studio they bought. The only one who does a good job at it is Sony, but even they don’t have as many studios as Embracer and they rely on Chinese digital asset sweatshops.
But that feels like the polar ends of who can benefit in the deprofessionalized world—developers with the stability to swing big for big-shot ideas, and programmers or designers with deep career experience that can be called in like a group of noble mercenaries. People in between will be left out.
Well, no. The issue is not that people offer their expertise as contract workers. The issue is supposed AAA studios cranking out one piece of hot garbage after another, while small independent teams can work (and fail) with unique ideas at a much faster rate.
There will always be freelance workers and having one on board, even an experienced one, will neither guarantee success nor is it a prerequisite. Looking at some highly successful indi titles of today, they often started with humble beginnings and got gradually more “professional” along the way.
I am currently playing Factorio Space Age and holy hell, have they come a long way since initial release. Fluid system, anyone?
Coming from the software development side, I interpret this statement a little differently.
I used to work with a team:
1 engineering manager whose sole focus was management, developing talent and problem solving around the organization
1 very senior engineer who could do the work of 10 ordinary engineers
2-3 mid level engineers who could work somewhat independently, as long as they were provided guidance to start
1-2 junior engineers who could only handle the most basic tasks and needed hand holding through most projects
Rather than working full tilt, the senior engineer did a lot of work pair programming and helping the juniors develop into better engineers. He accomplished half of what he could, but the team was better for it.
Fifteen years later, no one hired juniors anymore. We hire 1-2 seniors, 2 mid levels and that’s it. Everyone is expected to focus on developing software. No one cares about training or education.
The problem with this is we aren’t backfilling the ranks. If we don’t train juniors, they never become mid levels. Without mid levels, we won’t identify the best to become seniors.
In a world where game development happens on the fringes (indie studios or solo developers), who’s going to hire a junior that can’t contribute meaningfully to the project?
I have also worked on many engineering teams, both as management and engineering. Still, the execs are the ones that get left behind. The juniors at least have knowledge and ability to continue honing their craft. If they’re passionate about it, they will push through and make it work.
The execs just extract money, even in the scenarios you presented, and without any developers they can’t accomplish shit.
Having said that, I get what you’re saying, but again that is something that exists without this idea of “deprofessionalization.” Juniors get the shit end of the stick in a lot of industries, even outside development and engineering. On the flipside, so do seniors when the execs aren’t willing to pay what they’re worth, so they hire green juniors instead.
And by a modder turned dev, so, professionalisation? :)
Though the way wube works the whole team will have been involved in some way. And they’re a student so it’s part of a fairly normal pipeline for gamedev.
as Rigney defines it, deprofessionalization is […]
The older games are not “overperforming”. The newer games are underperforming.
Large studios are “struggling to drive sales” because customers take cost and benefit into account.
The success of those solo devs and small teams is not “outsized”, it’s deserved because they get it right.
What’s happening is that small devs release reasonably priced games with fun gameplay. In the meantime larger studios be like “needz moar grafix”, and pricing their games way above people are willing to pay.
More than “deprofessionalisation”, what’s primarily happening is the de-large-studio-isation: the independence of professionals, migrating to their own endeavours.
Also: “deprofessionalisation” implies that people leaving large studios stop being professionals, as if small/solo devs must be necessarily amateurs. That is not the case.
Deprofessionalization is built on the back of devaluing labor
And he “conveniently” omits the fact that most of that value wouldn’t reach the workers on first place. It’s retained by whoever owns those big gaming companies.
And people know it. That’s yet another reason why they’d rather buy a game from a random nobody than some big company.
As A16z marketing partner Ryan K. Rigney defines it […]
Rigney offered some extra nuance on his “deprofessionalization” theory in an email exchange we had before PAX. He predicted that marketing roles at studios would be “the first” on the chopping block, followed by “roles that seem replaceable to management (even if they’re not).”
Emphasis mine. Now it’s easy to get why he’s so worried about this process: large studios rely on marketing to oversell their games, while small devs mostly reach you by word-of-mouth.
Something must be said about marketing. Marketing is fine and dandy when it’s informing people about the existence of the goods to be bought; sadly 90% of marketing is not that, it’s to convince you that orange is purple.
My PAX trip validated my fear that three professions are especially vulnerable in this deprofessionalized world: artists, writers, and those working in game audio or music.
Unlike marketing teams, I’m genuinely worried about those people. I hope that they find their way into small dev teams.
I’d add that it’s not that larger studios want more impressive graphics that’s the problem but that their games are often monetized to hell and designed by committee to be as marketable as possible instead of being someone’s vision brought to fruition.
And because this sort of big business often focuses obsessively on what can be measured, ignoring what cannot be. Even if the later might be more important.
You can measure the number of vertices in a model, the total resolution, the expected gameplay length, the number of dev hours that went into a project. But you cannot reasonably measure the fun value of your game; at most you can rank it in comparison with other games. So fun value takes a backseat, even if it’s bread and butter.
In the meantime those small devs look holistically at their games. “This shit isn’t fun, I’m reworking it” here, “wow this mechanic actually works! I’ll expand it further” there.
Yeah corpos love their metrics - even though as soon as you measure them they cease to be useful as people will be gaming them. Not to mention they can only show a small part of what is actually happening.
This just seems like a more subtle posturing for “games should cost more”. Video game customers are notoriously right with their wallets. The lockdown boom was a fluke, not a new norm.
gamedeveloper.com
Najstarsze