The Big Picture

Simon Phillips is managing director of Gusto Games, which is currently developing the console version of Championship Manager for Eidos, along with new IP ProStroke Golf: World Tour 2007. In this guest editorial, he discusses the difficulties faced by independent developers and what publishers could do to help.

As MD of a small independent UK developer, I am always keen to read, catch up on and contribute to press publications on issues surrounding the process of development, peopleâs opinions on trends, and generally any information that will hopefully make our torrid time a little easier.

After reading a number of pieces over recent weeks, it has come to my attention that some bigger fish have thrown in their two penneth with regard to how things will shape up, and how things should be run. However, they appear to be so close to the issue that perhaps they cannot see the wood for the trees. I hear exactly what they are saying, but certain statements seem to be for the benefit of the press, as opposed to moving and improving the whole development process⦠And I'd like to redress the balance.

Money worries

Once a development team is coming to the end of a major project, not only is the pressure applied by the publisher to deliver a project on time and within budget (which we have now done on many successive occasions), the development house is also under a great deal of pressure to get the next project on board.

The creativity is there all year round, but fine-tuning these concept discussions and then getting them to a presentation status is both time consuming and bloody hard work. We put a number of concepts together, begin the pitch to publishers, and then the project with the most positive feedback will have the most time applied to it - hence our Golf project was born.

The main problem that now occurs is the time taken to present and re-present our concept before any publishing party can give us a form of commitment. Once a project is over, it takes very little downtime to eat into the profit which, if we were lucky, was accumulated during the last development cycle.

Publishers arguably need to make quicker decisions in order for the developer-publisher relationship to get off on the right foot, and up and running as soon as possible. It is here that the catch 22 lies; if the project is unique, novel, new and innovative, then it is less likely to be picked up by a publisher.

Under pressure

How on earth do the bigger publishers that are more concerned with creating franchises and âme tooâ products, in order to satisfy their shareholders, feel that they are in any position to nurture innovation and flair? The workshop environment of a large set-up does the opposite of this.

I am in favour of bringing people from outside of the industry into the dev melting pot to add their own spin on development. But when there are deadlines to meet, milestones to hit, and you are working on a product from an existing franchise, how can these big breakthrough additions be shoehorned into a multi-million selling project? Surely the bigger and the better the idea, the less likely the powers-that-be will embrace such a change?

The only way to guarantee new people coming into the industry, and to make the most of people already in the development world - namely those who are seeking more creative input - is to make them feel that they are wholly involved with the dev process from day one.

But here we go again... In order for this scenario to occur, it has to be a new project. A clean slate encourages creativity and ideas. A development formula or template does not.

As has been witnessed on a number of occasions, not only here at Gusto but also by members of our staff who have worked at other high profile companies, that there is a lack of willingness for people within the publishing industry to look at new ideas.

I pity the poor development director who has to please PR executives, deal with sales feedback from retail, communicate with a marketing department that says it cannot see the hook, and handle distribution partners who say, 'This kind of title has not been sold in our territory before, so I don't know how well it will do.' Why should the publisher embrace creativity when such a move will lead to uncertainty and fear from within?

Crew cuts

I have read a lot in the press recently about all the poaching, headhunting and general recruiting going on, and it appears to me that the real issue is retaining staff, and then adding to these in order to guarantee growth.

There is little point in development houses and publishers alike advertising month in, month out for new staff if they are simply going to drive them into the ground - making them work long days, weekends and every hour God sends in order to even get near the unrealistic targets that are being set. Come on, guys. The development industry is both small and incestuous, and people talk.

I can fully understand that as dev staff become older and more mature, the guys that I was working with 10 or 15 years ago now have mortgages and in some cases families - so there is an obvious attraction to join bigger, better funded set-ups.

That is why, as a big publisher, surely it makes sense to sell the individual genre or project to potential new recruits; or, in the case of UK studios being purchased or acquired, perhaps to retain the identity of these successful studios. Whilst, of course, highlighting the fact that they now have a much more stable and long-term future. That way, it will be possible to move forward, and achieve positive results with next-gen platforms.