Original Post
"The most valuable resource in my company goes out the door every night. My job is to get them to come back in the morning." - CEO, SAS In regards to the EA worker-treatment scandal, this idea is about challenging the industry's standard method of operation as flawed and self-destructive. It also posits the theory that commitment to innovation and economic success are not mutually exclusive; that committing to an environment that fosters creativity and innovation is not only necessary for the longterm health and well being of the electronic gaming industry, but a profitable means by which to excel beyond the current plateau. THE PREMISE: First we must challenge the notion that games are derived from software, or that the business of games must be run similar to its remote cousin, commercial enterprise software. Innovative, groundbreaking games - of which there is a scarce supply - are not meant to solve basic problems that inevitably lead to lower cost or higher revenues. Groundbreaking games, as opposed to enterprise software, are an artform. Game development via software programming is a means to an end...Technology is a tool, nothing more, whose sole purpose in an artistic domain is to give shareable form to imagination. While innovative and creative techniques can be used within the domain of software development, (In particular, UI design, and as luck would have it, often the worst executed and most difficult aspect of commercial software development for traditional engineers to grasp...) programming is no way the ultimate focus. Just as the art of great writing begins and ends with innovative concepts and ideas, creative use of word play, sentence structure and literary tools – so to does the art of great game production. If we accept the concept that innovative games are evolved forms of artistic expression, then how likely is it that the groundbreaking innovation and creativity the industry so desperately needs will origniate from a sterile, industrialized software production process? Does a focus on forced overtime, volume and cost cutting align with longterm output of quality art? THE LAWS OF PHYSICS Money is made two ways in any industry. Lead with a creative/innovative product or copycat those that do. Most organizations choose to follow rather than lead, because adhering to an environment dedicated to creativity and innovation requires a commitment beyond simple lip-service that most companies (and executive managers) are incapable of making. THE HIPBONE'S CONNECTED TO THE THIGHBONE.... Creative talent is rare, and a difficult commodity to cultivate in the current paradigm. In the short run, its a lot easier to copycat...but the absence of creativity is the root of a whole series of issues that lead to stale end-products, disillusioned staffs, turnover, a poor work environment, poorer sales and eventual failure. If it becomes endemic, an entire industry may find itself diluted with too many me-too reboxed versions of the original, and the medium itself suffers a decline. Collect objects to solve a puzzle or progress through a predetermined storyline, point and shoot. What's the last non-sports game you saw that varied wildly from this formula? I'd argue the best environment for innovative creativity is not found in the belly of a slave galleon. (If you exclude figuring out ways to escape, or revolt!) Companies who operate in such a fashion will struggle in time as the overall quality (and interest) in the medium declines...until the inevitable (innovative) breakthroughs occur that kick it off again. A SOLUTION? A company that looks at things a different way. Whether this startup is a fulltime development shop or split (between development and offering professional services engagements to other developers), I don't know yet. The differentiation is to create an enjoyable environment where the people come first - a true commitment to innovation and creativity, a sane quality of life, and a longterm return on time invested...all wrapped up in software development best practices. The theory is to attract and retain the best development talent possible by establishing an innovative, creative atmosphere. (i.e. SAS) SHANGR-LA? Or could it work? Would the talent be willing to accept less in the short term to gain exponentially more based on performance? (Lower salary, significant profit sharing.) Is a PS model viable, would other developers task out some of their development projects? IN CONCLUSION... Profit as the single motive runs in contradiction to what is required to stimulate great art, innovation and creativity...great artists became wealthy not because the produced their art for gain, but they became wealthy as a result of the appreciation of unique, groundbreaking expression and creativity. Great financial gain can be an indirect byproduct, but if its the sole focus than the gain is short lived. Thoughts? [Edited by - grayster on December 29, 2004 7:10:19 PM]