Blizzard cofounder launches new gaming endeavor Dreamhaven(venturebeat.com)
venturebeat.com
Blizzard cofounder launches new gaming endeavor Dreamhaven
https://venturebeat.com/2020/09/23/blizzard-cofounder-mike-morhaime-launches-new-gaming-endeavor-dreamhaven/
159 comments
Man...the record layoffs immediately after announcing record profits really chapped my ass.
Last year I had a Blizzard recruiter reach out to me. It was sad because when I got my CS degree in 2014, I had a dream of working for Blizzard. I told the recruiter that I had that dream, but after they decided to lay people off after reaching record profits, I no longer had any interest in working for them.
I ended up looking on Glassdoor for the position I would have worked and the pay was absolutely abysmal. Not sure how they would expect someone to live in or near Irvine, CA for $90K/year, or why anybody would accept that salary when other companies would pay nearly double that for the same work and experience.
Last year I had a Blizzard recruiter reach out to me. It was sad because when I got my CS degree in 2014, I had a dream of working for Blizzard. I told the recruiter that I had that dream, but after they decided to lay people off after reaching record profits, I no longer had any interest in working for them.
I ended up looking on Glassdoor for the position I would have worked and the pay was absolutely abysmal. Not sure how they would expect someone to live in or near Irvine, CA for $90K/year, or why anybody would accept that salary when other companies would pay nearly double that for the same work and experience.
I loved Hellgate: London. The game definitely lacked polish (ran out of money, I assume), but the general gameplay feel was great.
I agree and the timing was pretty poor for that game. Windows Vista was JUST out the door and the graphics card drivers were downright terrible at the time, often crashing. Reason being Vista used a completely new driver model (WDDM).
I recall HGL also had some unfortunate memory leak issues.
In general I think that game was largely hamstrung by performance issues for one reason or another.
The idea of a FPS Action RPG like that wa as simple as it was brilliant. I've wondered why it hadn't been done before and still hasn't quite been done again. Games like Dark Souls exist but I don't think they're quite the same. Rumor is Diablo IV was going to go there but Blizzard later changed their mind, rather opting for a traditional isometric view. I think they lose a lot of immersion doing that. Imagine sneaking through damp, dark cellars and have demons lurk around the corners, and everything built upon a solid itemization system and replayability with randomized maps.
I recall HGL also had some unfortunate memory leak issues.
In general I think that game was largely hamstrung by performance issues for one reason or another.
The idea of a FPS Action RPG like that wa as simple as it was brilliant. I've wondered why it hadn't been done before and still hasn't quite been done again. Games like Dark Souls exist but I don't think they're quite the same. Rumor is Diablo IV was going to go there but Blizzard later changed their mind, rather opting for a traditional isometric view. I think they lose a lot of immersion doing that. Imagine sneaking through damp, dark cellars and have demons lurk around the corners, and everything built upon a solid itemization system and replayability with randomized maps.
> "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G6oRuu9tLg"
Content aside - I feel like this video is terribly edited, scripted and produced. It's impossible to follow - thanks to all the shallow jokes, weird cuts and messy presentation. Almost like it's intentionally made for people without an attention span...
Content aside - I feel like this video is terribly edited, scripted and produced. It's impossible to follow - thanks to all the shallow jokes, weird cuts and messy presentation. Almost like it's intentionally made for people without an attention span...
Watch this video instead:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPFtUiTncy8
Seth Schiesel, an NYT vet and old school WoW player interviews Morhaime during April of this year.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPFtUiTncy8
Seth Schiesel, an NYT vet and old school WoW player interviews Morhaime during April of this year.
i still play WOW but i really dislike Blizzard kowtow to China.
Those are some pretty big names. The gaming industry has shown over and over how smaller companies fight toe-to-toe with giant companies if they produce games that people actually want to play. I wish them the best. Everyone loves an underdog.
Announcements of new companies like this are also the reason why I'm not as negative as some other people about the Bethesda acquisition. In the short term it might cause some more consolidation, but the whole gaming market is still growing and new independent studios are opening up, which counteracts the consolidation to some degree.
The problem with the Bethesda thing is that I won't get to play Doom Reboot 3 on PS5. I don't care about Xbox, heck I can't even differentiate the new model from the older one due to the confusing names.
Given that the Doom Reboot is all about juggling an insane number of tasks at once you’re better off playing it on PC anyway. In fact I suspect this series is limiting its potential audience because the core play style of fast weapon switching just isn’t very viable on console.
If you have a decent gaming PC Microsoft will still take care of you.
https://imgur.com/XwyReNw
The above is a fairly interesting flowchart detailing where all of the core employees moved on to after leaving Blizzard. Some have met success, most have folded.
To me, the only employee that ever mattered was Chris Metzen. He was the one who developed the core of all of their stories and personally approved every quest in WoW. If you're going to try to get players to emotionally connect to characters and story arcs, I would think that the writer would be the best place to figure out how.
The above is a fairly interesting flowchart detailing where all of the core employees moved on to after leaving Blizzard. Some have met success, most have folded.
To me, the only employee that ever mattered was Chris Metzen. He was the one who developed the core of all of their stories and personally approved every quest in WoW. If you're going to try to get players to emotionally connect to characters and story arcs, I would think that the writer would be the best place to figure out how.
Caveat emptor: Flowchart is from 2011. Runic Games, for example, folded, and the Schaeffer brothers parted ways. Max founded Etchra. Otherwise informative, thanks for linking.
How involved was he with Diablo 2? I don't know specifics, but I was disappointed by everything in Diablo 3, including the story, and I think that's due to the lack of the Blizzard North people.
How old is this? Under Carbine Studios it says unnamed MMO but I have to imagine that is Wildstar and this is just very old.
The chart says April 2011
I played wow in korean without being able to read any of the quests. just to have my warlock pet names in korean. story is not a big part of wow. ffxiv however..
Disagree, the greatest story in the world won't save bad mechanics. I mean, Dark Souls has a lore people obsess about, but there's plenty of people with an emotional attachment to it with absolutely no clue what's going on.
Likewise, interesting and fun mechanics don't necessarily create a fun game.
Take EVE Online. I love the ideas of the game. There are no rules (As long as you're not hacking/cheating) to what players can do. You can scam people. You can kill noobs (Though if you're in high-security space, you'll be instagibbed by CONCORD, essentially the space police). And the fact that losing your ship means its GONE means there's always a demand for crafted goods. Skills are learned over time whether you're playing or not, so you don't need to grind.
But...the actual gameplay is boring as hell [0].
[0] https://youtu.be/4c6jafaiPh8?t=66
Take EVE Online. I love the ideas of the game. There are no rules (As long as you're not hacking/cheating) to what players can do. You can scam people. You can kill noobs (Though if you're in high-security space, you'll be instagibbed by CONCORD, essentially the space police). And the fact that losing your ship means its GONE means there's always a demand for crafted goods. Skills are learned over time whether you're playing or not, so you don't need to grind.
But...the actual gameplay is boring as hell [0].
[0] https://youtu.be/4c6jafaiPh8?t=66
(ALWP) I mean, obviously plenty of people do love Eve Online, but the micro-mechanics shown in the video are awful. Compare to Dark Souls (again) where pretty much every combat is interesting (and has better be because you’re gonna redo it a lot until you crack it).
OTOH, I found the mechanics of the recent Spider-Man game kind of fun, but the macro game is just endless repetition. Which feels true of a lot of AAA games these days.
OTOH, I found the mechanics of the recent Spider-Man game kind of fun, but the macro game is just endless repetition. Which feels true of a lot of AAA games these days.
The PS4 Spiderman is a gorgeous game with amazing combat and parkour!
Me and my wife both cringed really hard to the repetitiveness and the blandness of the characters however. Tons of plot inconsistencies!
Me and my wife both cringed really hard to the repetitiveness and the blandness of the characters however. Tons of plot inconsistencies!
Grief, yes, I found it ridiculously hard to actually care about the characters. They should have had a plot where the villain was sucking all of the interesting out of people. Just travelling through the city was way more fun.
A good example is Elex. It's got a good world/story, fun factions, it looks pretty good, exploration is interesting and fun. But the combat is horrific. Balancing is terrible. You'll find high level enemies right next to low level ones. The actual gameplay is so bad.
And you'll see it repeated over and over on the reviews on the steam page.
Some people claim it gets better if you stick with it, and I did because I was playing it over a holiday. My experience was they're wrong, it never gets better.
And you'll see it repeated over and over on the reviews on the steam page.
Some people claim it gets better if you stick with it, and I did because I was playing it over a holiday. My experience was they're wrong, it never gets better.
The name text in that image is too small to read..
Open the image in a new tab then you can zoom-in as much as you want. imgur is not showing the full zoomed in version
> If you're going to try to get players to emotionally connect to characters and story arcs, I would think that the writer would be the best place to figure out how.
I was fairly attached to WoW while never paying much attention to the superficial stories and quests. I did at first, but it honestly wasn't great from what I remember (the first WoW), and so I just focused on the gameplay and team work rather than the story.
Personally, I read books for the story, and play games for the mechanics.
I was fairly attached to WoW while never paying much attention to the superficial stories and quests. I did at first, but it honestly wasn't great from what I remember (the first WoW), and so I just focused on the gameplay and team work rather than the story.
Personally, I read books for the story, and play games for the mechanics.
I would just play WoW focusing on similar things to you and then watch a youtube video for the lore :)
Me thinks they used the Fantasy Place Name generator. . . https://www.fantasynamegenerators.com/fantasy-town-names.php
I love that website! I use it all the time to get some inspiration for my hobby project names
I just hope they don't hire a bunch of lawyers and go after Dreamhaven Books in Minneapolis: http://dreamhavenbooks.com
Unrelated anecdote - the person that develops that site is part of a community of generator website creators.
We build all kinds of fun tools like that.
We build all kinds of fun tools like that.
Out of interest is the reddit username generator written by someone in that community?
(https://perchance.org/reddit-username)
Its my go-to place when i need another 30-40 accounts.
(https://perchance.org/reddit-username)
Its my go-to place when i need another 30-40 accounts.
Why do you need 30-40 reddit accounts?
I like messing about with bots and auto-posting.
Lots of subreddits have restrictions based on karma and account age. Mass creating in batches seemed the easiest answer.
Lots of subreddits have restrictions based on karma and account age. Mass creating in batches seemed the easiest answer.
That generator, no. But the website it's made on, yes.
Do you have a webring? :)
No webring as of yet, but I do run a website that tries to index the members: https://rpggen.dev
In the interest of driving conversation away from nostalgia-ism let's talk about the economics of a high-tier game career.
Morhaime has now left the company he helped found, and one he sold off eons ago. Now stepping into a new vessel he gets to sell a bit less equity this time around and bring along the cream of his leadership team. No doubt he funded the initial paperwork out of his own pocket, but soon accepted one of the flood of investment offers.
It is an old play book yet no one talks about it when the play succeeds. Remember that falling out Martin O'Donnell had with Bungie? Did you notice how Martin moved on to found his own studio, one which successfully shipped a non-trivial game? Now not only does he get all the creative control he wanted, but even all of the financial upside.
Video games are so successful even those people getting pushed out of the "golden castle" have the skills and connections to build their own castle. No doubt this would change if games were not such a quick growing industry, but we've maintained that growth for a couple decades now.
This I think leads back to a fan favorite topic: unionization in games. For the opposite reason one might think: those successful enough to be "too important too lose" for studios are more likely setup new studios before they ever spend their political capital on unionization. This leaves the suits, who by definition are incapable of setting a studio, and the "bulk of the creative team".
Hollywood could unionize because no matter how famous no star alone is capable of walking out the door to make a new studio. Thus the stars and more importantly directors saw the studios as overlords, not future peers. Games does not have that, and it is a core problem the games unionization movement needs to figure out a solution to.
Morhaime has now left the company he helped found, and one he sold off eons ago. Now stepping into a new vessel he gets to sell a bit less equity this time around and bring along the cream of his leadership team. No doubt he funded the initial paperwork out of his own pocket, but soon accepted one of the flood of investment offers.
It is an old play book yet no one talks about it when the play succeeds. Remember that falling out Martin O'Donnell had with Bungie? Did you notice how Martin moved on to found his own studio, one which successfully shipped a non-trivial game? Now not only does he get all the creative control he wanted, but even all of the financial upside.
Video games are so successful even those people getting pushed out of the "golden castle" have the skills and connections to build their own castle. No doubt this would change if games were not such a quick growing industry, but we've maintained that growth for a couple decades now.
This I think leads back to a fan favorite topic: unionization in games. For the opposite reason one might think: those successful enough to be "too important too lose" for studios are more likely setup new studios before they ever spend their political capital on unionization. This leaves the suits, who by definition are incapable of setting a studio, and the "bulk of the creative team".
Hollywood could unionize because no matter how famous no star alone is capable of walking out the door to make a new studio. Thus the stars and more importantly directors saw the studios as overlords, not future peers. Games does not have that, and it is a core problem the games unionization movement needs to figure out a solution to.
One of the issues that has made it difficult to discuss labor in games generally is a lack of any role standardization. This has calmed down somewhat as more and more games turn towards standardized content creation systems, but the whole endeavor historically has been completely upended on four year cycles, with games made by solo teenagers usurped by those made by teams, and then by teams with marketing and sales backing, and then by teams with increasingly higher specialization, with new waves of hardware at each turn.
The people in these high profile roles that gather as "founding core members" often found themselves in the position of right-place-right-time and afterwards just tried to keep up with the changes, and so, to some extent, they end up branded as creative and business talents, when the thing being tested most often in their career was their ability to sufficiently manage and delegate to get the project over the finish line.
So every time I see a story of a AAA vet starting something new I think to myself "prepare for some hard knocks", cause they are now being retested on their scrappy start-up abilities, but often get burdened by the expectations of an established studio, and entrenched in a particular approach. They can raise a lot but very often it means they fail big, too.
The people in these high profile roles that gather as "founding core members" often found themselves in the position of right-place-right-time and afterwards just tried to keep up with the changes, and so, to some extent, they end up branded as creative and business talents, when the thing being tested most often in their career was their ability to sufficiently manage and delegate to get the project over the finish line.
So every time I see a story of a AAA vet starting something new I think to myself "prepare for some hard knocks", cause they are now being retested on their scrappy start-up abilities, but often get burdened by the expectations of an established studio, and entrenched in a particular approach. They can raise a lot but very often it means they fail big, too.
Actors make their own production studios all the time.
That's why Hollywood unionized the way it did. A specific studio couldn't unionize because they would just get dissolved and reformed under a new LLC.
No actor or famous game designer is capable of creating a AAA movie/game by themselves. They need a lot of people to work on it.
The only difference is Hollywood the entire pool of workers unionized they have no choice but to hire a union worker.
Game designers/programmers need to follow the same formula. The two industries have exactly the same problem, Hollywood workers have been around long enough to figure out the solution.
That's why Hollywood unionized the way it did. A specific studio couldn't unionize because they would just get dissolved and reformed under a new LLC.
No actor or famous game designer is capable of creating a AAA movie/game by themselves. They need a lot of people to work on it.
The only difference is Hollywood the entire pool of workers unionized they have no choice but to hire a union worker.
Game designers/programmers need to follow the same formula. The two industries have exactly the same problem, Hollywood workers have been around long enough to figure out the solution.
As a former member of Local 600 - saying “the entire pool of workers unionized” is inaccurate. A significant number of feature films are produced ever year with non-union crews. They may or may not know what they’re doing, but they exist. I worked on them prior to joining the Cinematographer’s Guild (you have to start somewhere).
Also of note, the various film industry unions were largely created back in the day when unionization was generally more popular in society. They have remained strong - like steelworkers - because the protections are worth joining, apprenticeship and training is available/valuable, and the working conditions are often potentially hazardous. People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).
Also of note, the various film industry unions were largely created back in the day when unionization was generally more popular in society. They have remained strong - like steelworkers - because the protections are worth joining, apprenticeship and training is available/valuable, and the working conditions are often potentially hazardous. People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).
I love it when someone who actually knows what they're talking about enters a thread like this. It quells the tendency for people (almost always men - myself included) to confidently string together a handful of facts (that they once overheard in a cafe) and explain their way to some sort of hot take.
(Not claiming that the conclusions drawn by the GP or GGP are incorrect here - I don't know much about the games industry. Just talking about HN more generally.)
(Not claiming that the conclusions drawn by the GP or GGP are incorrect here - I don't know much about the games industry. Just talking about HN more generally.)
> almost always men
no need to generalize an entire gender, especially since that has no relevance to this discussion
no need to generalize an entire gender, especially since that has no relevance to this discussion
It's a pattern that does tend to exist in my experience, and talking openly and constructively about problems is just part of fixing them. To be clear, I'm not saying that all (or even most) guys have this tendency. I think you may have mentally categorised my comment into the "men bad" bin, but that's really not what I was going for. It's literally a pattern that I have noticed in my own behaviour, so I'm not out to attack anyone here.
I think it has more to do with where you look than gender. If you looked at antivax posts likely you would think otherwise.
> The "vast majority" of people commenting, sharing and liking anti-vaccination information on Facebook are women, a new study finds.
https://www.livescience.com/61305-most-online-anti-vaxxers-a...
> The "vast majority" of people commenting, sharing and liking anti-vaccination information on Facebook are women, a new study finds.
https://www.livescience.com/61305-most-online-anti-vaxxers-a...
>People Don’t realize, but industry workers get injured/die every year on movie sets (though it is better than it used to be).
Is this largely due to construction projects like sets and the use of heavy equipment, or is it more from stunts or something else I haven't considered?
Also, since you're an insider, when they build sets and props and stuff, do they still have to follow OSHA requirements and get safety inspections and stuff?
Is this largely due to construction projects like sets and the use of heavy equipment, or is it more from stunts or something else I haven't considered?
Also, since you're an insider, when they build sets and props and stuff, do they still have to follow OSHA requirements and get safety inspections and stuff?
Fatigue, carrying heavy equipment (film lights, rain equipment, set construction all involve you know, huge amounts of physical stuff being moved), equipment failure during a FX such as an explosion or a car crash.
Deaths and permanent injury were actually horrifyingly common from what I know of very early film industry. Unionisation, at least of stuntmen, has probably saved a couple of hundred lives, both literally and in avoiding permanent injury.
Simple exhaustion can do it. There was a famous case about a woman who got hit by some kind of railcar being used in production a few years ago. She died. There was a documentary made about it called “who needs sleep”. Conditions can be really really difficult sometimes, because a stars time Immensely valuable, while crew time is cheaper. So a star is ie 10k p hour While keeping crew around awake for 12/16 hours a day to shoot when they’re finished makeup / shooting another scene somewhere else is often more economical to keep the crew awake for too long. You have to finish “the day” since the star is payed per diem, afaik. I don’t work in Hollywood but film and commercials.
Deaths and permanent injury were actually horrifyingly common from what I know of very early film industry. Unionisation, at least of stuntmen, has probably saved a couple of hundred lives, both literally and in avoiding permanent injury.
Simple exhaustion can do it. There was a famous case about a woman who got hit by some kind of railcar being used in production a few years ago. She died. There was a documentary made about it called “who needs sleep”. Conditions can be really really difficult sometimes, because a stars time Immensely valuable, while crew time is cheaper. So a star is ie 10k p hour While keeping crew around awake for 12/16 hours a day to shoot when they’re finished makeup / shooting another scene somewhere else is often more economical to keep the crew awake for too long. You have to finish “the day” since the star is payed per diem, afaik. I don’t work in Hollywood but film and commercials.
Q1: all of the above. Moving vehicles and equipment. Stunts/practical effects/etc. High power lighting and electrical cords strung everywhere. Tripping hazards. Falling hazards. Oh, and as a rule, never get in the helicopter.
Q2: I don’t know. I imagine it depends on how much is being built and how controlled the environment would be.
Edit: I should also stress the impact of sleep deprivation on accidents and mistakes. Filmmaking hours are often pegged at 12+ as a standard day, and a well financed production won’t bat an eye at paying the penalties to push a crew.
Q2: I don’t know. I imagine it depends on how much is being built and how controlled the environment would be.
Edit: I should also stress the impact of sleep deprivation on accidents and mistakes. Filmmaking hours are often pegged at 12+ as a standard day, and a well financed production won’t bat an eye at paying the penalties to push a crew.
I was talking with some one in Prospect/BECTU (IATSE) and she mentioned her first job was on Coronation Street helping the older actors onto set and making sure they didn't trip over any thing.
I was/am on the same committe (SOC)
I was/am on the same committe (SOC)
I don't know about movies, but I worked on construction sites for 5 years. OSHA never showed up. Our understanding was they don't show up unless there is a fatality.
I've done the OSHA 40 hour training and even had a reportable OSHA incident (minor cut finger on a soil density gauge that got infected and required antibotics), I never heard from the agency.
I've done the OSHA 40 hour training and even had a reportable OSHA incident (minor cut finger on a soil density gauge that got infected and required antibotics), I never heard from the agency.
> They have remained strong - like steelworkers - because the protections are worth joining
Do you think they would join if they weren't forced to join? If so why should they be forced to join? This kind of arrangement is illegal in Europe so it isn't required to get high union participation.
Do you think they would join if they weren't forced to join? If so why should they be forced to join? This kind of arrangement is illegal in Europe so it isn't required to get high union participation.
They aren’t forced to join.
I’m going to be a bit handwavy here:
generally - crew members do not work for a specific company, so the problem of a “Union only” job is perhaps somewhat different. Crew members are all functionally contractors for that one specific production. There are no long term contractual obligations. After that production is over, they have to hunt around for their next gig which reinforces the relationship based job economy of Hollywood labor.
When a production is kicking, off department heads will be hired (for instance, a Director is Photography) and they will hire the crew members below them in the hierarchy. Many department heads will have their regular group of people they call, and it can be difficult to break into the network. Most people who join a union have experience, training, references, etc which help build those connections.
Again, non-union film production happens all the time. The benefits of joining one of the unions are positive enough that most people do, but You don’t have to be in Local 600 to shoot a movie.
I’m going to be a bit handwavy here:
generally - crew members do not work for a specific company, so the problem of a “Union only” job is perhaps somewhat different. Crew members are all functionally contractors for that one specific production. There are no long term contractual obligations. After that production is over, they have to hunt around for their next gig which reinforces the relationship based job economy of Hollywood labor.
When a production is kicking, off department heads will be hired (for instance, a Director is Photography) and they will hire the crew members below them in the hierarchy. Many department heads will have their regular group of people they call, and it can be difficult to break into the network. Most people who join a union have experience, training, references, etc which help build those connections.
Again, non-union film production happens all the time. The benefits of joining one of the unions are positive enough that most people do, but You don’t have to be in Local 600 to shoot a movie.
They are forced to join if they want to work on the same production set as union members. That kind of forcing is illegal in Europe.
Again, you’re speaking from ignorance alone here.
This is only required in some cases. In a “union shoot” as it were. These are rare in comparison to non-union films. Every actor has many examples of non-union films they participate in.
Usually big stars work in non-union roles and films to give younger professionals an opportunity. The star provides marketing power for a smaller Non-union production. Then people can join the union as well.
This is only required in some cases. In a “union shoot” as it were. These are rare in comparison to non-union films. Every actor has many examples of non-union films they participate in.
Usually big stars work in non-union roles and films to give younger professionals an opportunity. The star provides marketing power for a smaller Non-union production. Then people can join the union as well.
> Every actor has many examples of non-union films they participate in.
Actors aren't allowed to participate in non-union films. They sometimes do anyway but the contract says they can't.
> SAG-AFTRA members cannot accept an acting role in any studio, independent, low-budget, pilot, experimental, non-profit, interactive, educational, student, or ANY production, unless that producer has signed a Contract or Letter of Agreement with SAG-AFTRA.
> Members who are found in violation of these rules are subject to serious fines and discipline by a panel of union peers.
https://www.sagaftra.org/what-happens-if-i-accept-non-union-...
Actors aren't allowed to participate in non-union films. They sometimes do anyway but the contract says they can't.
> SAG-AFTRA members cannot accept an acting role in any studio, independent, low-budget, pilot, experimental, non-profit, interactive, educational, student, or ANY production, unless that producer has signed a Contract or Letter of Agreement with SAG-AFTRA.
> Members who are found in violation of these rules are subject to serious fines and discipline by a panel of union peers.
https://www.sagaftra.org/what-happens-if-i-accept-non-union-...
That is one of many unions. Not all have such a restriction.
One of many unions known for having many American film stars in it's membership?
I’ve met a few. Who cares.
You've met a few unions? It's not really feeling like you have any specific domain knowledge here, given how sparse and off-kilter all of your replies have been. If you have actual counter-examples of other unions that operate differently in that space, then just name them.
This may be role dependent. There are non-union laborers all over a union production.
Not Shure pre entry closed shop is illegal in all European countries.
It is a part of EU law, so at least the EU countries.
Interesting, the gig thing probably promotes unionization, because the membership actually carries some signaling value to the hiring org.
Yes, running a “union gig” or “non-union gig” is a concern of the directors and producers. Union means higher level of talent and skill, but increased costs and bureaucratic pains. Non-union means young, fresh talent (with on average less skill), so they work linger and cheaper.
I believe that is to be true.
> A specific studio couldn't unionize because they would just get dissolved and reformed under a new LLC.
If your workers are members of a union... how does closing the company and starting a new one help? They're still in the union.
If your workers are members of a union... how does closing the company and starting a new one help? They're still in the union.
That was exactly his point.
In USA (I dunno where you are from), sometimes the union is company-specific, as in: the union forms inside the company and has only that company workers and has some say on the company management.
In Holywood that didn't work, because movies often have a one-off company created just for them (it still works this way).
So the actors and whatnot created non-company unions, so this way they get what you just said (ie: company dissolves, but employees are still in a union, since the union wasn't tied to a company).
In USA (I dunno where you are from), sometimes the union is company-specific, as in: the union forms inside the company and has only that company workers and has some say on the company management.
In Holywood that didn't work, because movies often have a one-off company created just for them (it still works this way).
So the actors and whatnot created non-company unions, so this way they get what you just said (ie: company dissolves, but employees are still in a union, since the union wasn't tied to a company).
US unions are tied to a company so shutting the company shuts the union. There are some old exceptions like in the movie industry that were grandfathered in but you can't create new such unions.
Are you sure? which law is that?
The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech
The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech
Outlawed might be a bad word, but there are no protections for them and things like sympathy strikes are illegal.
> The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech
I don't see a way for individuals to join, just how to get them to help you organize a company union.
https://cwa-union.org/join-union
Compare to Swedens engineering union which you just have to fill in this form for and then you are a member:
https://www.sverigesingenjorer.se/ansokan/
> The CWA is/has tried recruiting in tech
I don't see a way for individuals to join, just how to get them to help you organize a company union.
https://cwa-union.org/join-union
Compare to Swedens engineering union which you just have to fill in this form for and then you are a member:
https://www.sverigesingenjorer.se/ansokan/
Yes, the NRLA and Taft-Hartley acts were structured to prevent the growth of unions and sector-wide labor organizing by stating that unions can only be formed on the basis of company-level votes.
There isn't a general branch you can join then - and in the Swedish case not all employers have recognition.
One difference is that film requires in-person work while games can be made 100% remotely. Globally unionizing isn’t the same as unionizing a town. I don’t see it happening.
> Game designers/programmers need to follow the same formula.
Thats basically impossible though. Because, at some point, programmers from other industries, will just enter the market.
What, are you going to try and unionize the entire tech industry? Because I'm not going to go along with that (I will defect, every step of the way, if people try to push me into that arrangement).
And if you don't unionize all of tech, then programmers from outside the industry will be able to compete for those jobs.
Thats basically impossible though. Because, at some point, programmers from other industries, will just enter the market.
What, are you going to try and unionize the entire tech industry? Because I'm not going to go along with that (I will defect, every step of the way, if people try to push me into that arrangement).
And if you don't unionize all of tech, then programmers from outside the industry will be able to compete for those jobs.
That's why I think we are better off focusing our efforts across our entire society. Minimum Wages, Leave Entitlements, Superannuation, Medicare.
I don't think game developers need to be paid more than somebody working in the supermarket or digging a trench.
I don't think game developers need to be paid more than somebody working in the supermarket or digging a trench.
> Hollywood could unionize because no matter how famous no star alone is capable of walking out the door to make a new studio.
I don't think that's quite true: United Artists was founded specifically by stars that walked out of the door, hence its name.
And today lots of stars have their own production companies, and the studio simply acts as the distributor. They handle getting the movie into cinemas, but otherwise don't have a financial stake.
Some examples that come to mind:
* Will Ferrell: Gary Sanchez Productions * Tom Cruise: Cruise/Wagner * Adam Sandler: Happy Madison * Brad Pitt: Plan B * Shonda Rhimes: Shondaland
Both Shondaland and Happy Madison aren't beholden to regular studios at all, they simply have multi-picture deals with the highest bidder (in both cases, Netflix).
I don't think that's quite true: United Artists was founded specifically by stars that walked out of the door, hence its name.
And today lots of stars have their own production companies, and the studio simply acts as the distributor. They handle getting the movie into cinemas, but otherwise don't have a financial stake.
Some examples that come to mind:
* Will Ferrell: Gary Sanchez Productions * Tom Cruise: Cruise/Wagner * Adam Sandler: Happy Madison * Brad Pitt: Plan B * Shonda Rhimes: Shondaland
Both Shondaland and Happy Madison aren't beholden to regular studios at all, they simply have multi-picture deals with the highest bidder (in both cases, Netflix).
Well... first, the "studio system" where actors were tied to a single studio by contract hasn't held sway for half a century. Talent (stars and especially directors) have been founding their own studios off and on for a century now.
Examples: United Artists was started in 1919 by W.D. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. Or Mercury Theater, founded by Orson Wells and Houseman. Dreamworks, founded by Spielberg (and Katzenberg and Geffen). And there are dozens of production companies owned by actors and directors. Many of these firms eventually get acquired by major studios.
While it may be easier to find success with an indie game than an indie film, I don't see why one is easier than the other assuming the team has the appropriate skillset. The parallels between film making and game making are quite substantial, IMO. Both the business and process.
Examples: United Artists was started in 1919 by W.D. Griffith, Charlie Chaplin, Mary Pickford and Douglas Fairbanks. Or Mercury Theater, founded by Orson Wells and Houseman. Dreamworks, founded by Spielberg (and Katzenberg and Geffen). And there are dozens of production companies owned by actors and directors. Many of these firms eventually get acquired by major studios.
While it may be easier to find success with an indie game than an indie film, I don't see why one is easier than the other assuming the team has the appropriate skillset. The parallels between film making and game making are quite substantial, IMO. Both the business and process.
Let's hope it turns out as well as Dan Vavra's founding Warhorse and making Kingdom Come: Deliverance after making Mafia.
You're missing a big factor: money. It takes significant capital to start your own studio. In games, only the founders are making real cash, and only if they're actually successful the first time around. Programmers make significantly less than they do in other fields, for example.
And then in terms of reputation, very few people in games - usually designers - are household names. I'm talking maybe a dozen or two people in the entire industry (vs hundreds in film). And I would assume that it's very hard to get outside investment without that star power.
Finally, games is an enormously crowded space. Thanks in part to the massive influx of indies, improvement in tools, etc there's an insane amount of oversaturation on platforms like Steam. This means that thousands of high-quality games go completely unnoticed and die a quiet death. Unless you have that star power to get people paying attention in the first place, or you win the social media lottery and go viral, you're probably toast.
So yes, the market is huge and growing, but despite that it remains a really brutal industry to be in. Big studios know this, and they take full advantage of it, knowing that their employees would likely have it even worse if they left.
And then in terms of reputation, very few people in games - usually designers - are household names. I'm talking maybe a dozen or two people in the entire industry (vs hundreds in film). And I would assume that it's very hard to get outside investment without that star power.
Finally, games is an enormously crowded space. Thanks in part to the massive influx of indies, improvement in tools, etc there's an insane amount of oversaturation on platforms like Steam. This means that thousands of high-quality games go completely unnoticed and die a quiet death. Unless you have that star power to get people paying attention in the first place, or you win the social media lottery and go viral, you're probably toast.
So yes, the market is huge and growing, but despite that it remains a really brutal industry to be in. Big studios know this, and they take full advantage of it, knowing that their employees would likely have it even worse if they left.
What can fix this?
If everyone adopts the same game engines and assets become cheap and easy to produce, could there be a renaissance of small gaming studios that are sustainable and pay competitive wages?
What's the blocker? Why aren't things better?
If everyone adopts the same game engines and assets become cheap and easy to produce, could there be a renaissance of small gaming studios that are sustainable and pay competitive wages?
What's the blocker? Why aren't things better?
Let's say each game needs to sell 100000 copies to be profitable. If you make more games you need to sell more copies. The amount of games people buy doesn't increase simply because there are more games. Lots of people buy one or two games and play them for a long time. So eventually you end up in a situation where you have 1000 games (must sell 100 million copies) but only 50 million customers are willing to buy stuff.
There's no way to "fix" the laws of supply and demand. Making games is a lot of people's dream jobs. People are willing to take a pay cut and worker longer hours to have a job in the game development industry. Same reason why you have aspiring actors working tables to make ends meet.
>This means that thousands of high-quality games go completely unnoticed and die a quiet death. Unless you have that star power to get people paying attention in the first place, or you win the social media lottery and go viral, you're probably toast.
Even star power isn't enough persay
https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2020/09/17/disintegrati...
Games can take thousands of people to make, from coding to marketing. Maybe one or two will be able to start a new company with any success. I do really like John Romero's smaller projects though.
Not everything needs to be a AAA game
Even star power isn't enough persay
https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2020/09/17/disintegrati...
Games can take thousands of people to make, from coding to marketing. Maybe one or two will be able to start a new company with any success. I do really like John Romero's smaller projects though.
Not everything needs to be a AAA game
They must have seriously screwed up marketing. I loved Halo, Portal, Titanfall. I liked those games on Facebook. I read the usual game magazine websites. I watch SciFi let's plays on YouTube. This game looks like I'll very much enjoy it, yet I had literally never heard of it until you mentioned it.
How come with all this data collection and targeted advertisement, I never saw an ad for this? Google and Facebook should know that I'm interested in a Halo-like new game.
How come with all this data collection and targeted advertisement, I never saw an ad for this? Google and Facebook should know that I'm interested in a Halo-like new game.
Like the article mentioned, it had terrible reviews. It's a game in which the 'new and fun hybrid gameplay' ambition doesn't match the reality. They didn't screw up the marketing (lots of 'iterative' or 'persistent' shooters have become massive hits almost organically), they screwed up the game.
I don't think the premise upthread - that there are zillions of high quality games that nobody notices is really true. Yes, it's a crowded market but it's also absolutely mobbed with people looking for the next big or interesting thing - to play, to stream, to make a catchy review of, etc.
I don't think the premise upthread - that there are zillions of high quality games that nobody notices is really true. Yes, it's a crowded market but it's also absolutely mobbed with people looking for the next big or interesting thing - to play, to stream, to make a catchy review of, etc.
The problem games face is that most games, small or big, are reasonably well-produced but ultimately settle on doing more-of-the-same things, commoditizing themselves into a position where they can't address any market in particular, so instead of getting a "fair share" they get almost nothing because all attention goes to a path-dependent established best in the category. Big productions can break through that with spend, but only somewhat. And any time there is a breakout hit it gets followed by a sea of clones.
And as a whole the industry remains stuck on the problem of how to run the production, since it's still challenging to ship anything even now.
And as a whole the industry remains stuck on the problem of how to run the production, since it's still challenging to ship anything even now.
I just watched the launch trailer. I have no idea what the game play is
[deleted]
From Wikipedia: "Many high-profile actors refused to join SAG initially. This changed when the producers made an agreement amongst themselves not to bid competitively for talent."
Tech companies have tried this in the past, now this would typically be met with an antitrust suit rather than creating a guild. Not sure which is preferable.
Tech companies have tried this in the past, now this would typically be met with an antitrust suit rather than creating a guild. Not sure which is preferable.
With an antitrust suit: grievances are addressed years after the fact, if at all, with little meaningful compensation for the aggrieved employees.
With a guild/union: grievances are addressed immediately or before they occur (depending on the structure of work contracts), minimizing the economic suffering to employees.
Generally, from the perspective of employees, guilds/unions are better.
EDIT: a "guild" is a union for independent contractors.
With a guild/union: grievances are addressed immediately or before they occur (depending on the structure of work contracts), minimizing the economic suffering to employees.
Generally, from the perspective of employees, guilds/unions are better.
EDIT: a "guild" is a union for independent contractors.
For a similar reason, it seems to me that unionizing is the answer for uber/lyft drivers to get protections they want without being tied down as permanent employees.
The list of reasons unionizing drivers would be difficult to impossible is long and obvious, but the outcome would surely be better than some hamfisted state law.
Also, right now uber is framing the issue as drivers vs the state. A union push would make it uber vs the drivers, much harder to spin.
The list of reasons unionizing drivers would be difficult to impossible is long and obvious, but the outcome would surely be better than some hamfisted state law.
Also, right now uber is framing the issue as drivers vs the state. A union push would make it uber vs the drivers, much harder to spin.
> The list of reasons unionizing drivers would be difficult to impossible is long and obvious, but the outcome would surely be better than some hamfisted state law.
The state could mandate sectoral representation for all the drivers, functionally requiring unionization. That way the nitty gritty details are still just contract negotiations between the union and the gig economy companies, but there isn't too much space for overly broad or stifling regulatory requirements (from the State anyway, between the lawyers on all sides of the issue is a different story).
The state could mandate sectoral representation for all the drivers, functionally requiring unionization. That way the nitty gritty details are still just contract negotiations between the union and the gig economy companies, but there isn't too much space for overly broad or stifling regulatory requirements (from the State anyway, between the lawyers on all sides of the issue is a different story).
Technically, non-wage workers (i.e., independent contractors), would form a guild rather than a union.
Are sure about that you can call your self a guild or the BMA but you are a union.
As others have pointed out this is a very old design pattern.
In tech, it is this:
Stage 1: Graduate college and get hired by a growing company. Observe all you can about what works and what doesn't while networking with the best people. Ideally a public company so that you can participate in its growth through equity ownership (stock options, employee purchase plans, Etc.)
Stage 2: Found (or join as founder) startup composed of good engineers you know, that is funded by VC money. Build it up to an exit to get a bigger slice of the pie given your greater equity.
Stage 3: Found a new company where it is primarily funded by your founders and not VC. Build that company up to an exit and you and your friends collect the big bucks as you still own most of the equity.
At this point you're independently wealthy and can do what ever you want with your life[1]
It has been the "silicon valley dream" for a lot of people over the last 30 years. And since each stage is typically 4 - 6 years that is really a 15 to 20 year plan.
Doesn't work for everyone though, and I have observed that people who are on this trajectory and recognize they are unlikely to reach orbit (so to speak), can get pretty vicious. You have a relatively short window to decide if the current stage is going to meet your goals for that stage or not, and if a stage doesn't provide the necessary lift, you probably only get one additional shot at making it work. As a result this path also leads to a place of depression for some.
[1] Assuming along the way you've learned to manage your wealth in a sustainable fashion.
In tech, it is this:
Stage 1: Graduate college and get hired by a growing company. Observe all you can about what works and what doesn't while networking with the best people. Ideally a public company so that you can participate in its growth through equity ownership (stock options, employee purchase plans, Etc.)
Stage 2: Found (or join as founder) startup composed of good engineers you know, that is funded by VC money. Build it up to an exit to get a bigger slice of the pie given your greater equity.
Stage 3: Found a new company where it is primarily funded by your founders and not VC. Build that company up to an exit and you and your friends collect the big bucks as you still own most of the equity.
At this point you're independently wealthy and can do what ever you want with your life[1]
It has been the "silicon valley dream" for a lot of people over the last 30 years. And since each stage is typically 4 - 6 years that is really a 15 to 20 year plan.
Doesn't work for everyone though, and I have observed that people who are on this trajectory and recognize they are unlikely to reach orbit (so to speak), can get pretty vicious. You have a relatively short window to decide if the current stage is going to meet your goals for that stage or not, and if a stage doesn't provide the necessary lift, you probably only get one additional shot at making it work. As a result this path also leads to a place of depression for some.
[1] Assuming along the way you've learned to manage your wealth in a sustainable fashion.
> Doesn't work for everyone though
I’d say that there is an extremely small portion of people that are able to complete Stage 2. “Doesn’t work for everyone” seems like an understatement.
Stage 3 is probably easier to do once you completed stage 2, but still is very difficult.
Really, how many people can you count that would have successfully pulled this off? 100 maybe?
I’d say that there is an extremely small portion of people that are able to complete Stage 2. “Doesn’t work for everyone” seems like an understatement.
Stage 3 is probably easier to do once you completed stage 2, but still is very difficult.
Really, how many people can you count that would have successfully pulled this off? 100 maybe?
My guess would be a few thousand in the Bay Area. Crunchbase could probably give you a better number by doing a bit of data mining on their database to find former Sun, Yahoo, Amazon, Facebook, Tesla, Apple, and Google employees who have gone on to create startups and exited those startups. Those companies alone have minted > 10,000 multi-millionaires who were simply employees at the company either prior to an IPO or prior to a large run up in value (like Apple).
Of people I know who have stepped off at stage 2, they pocket enough wealth that they no longer have to work to maintain a moderate lifestyle, and then move to a place that interests them and work on other pursuits.
Of people I know who have stepped off at stage 2, they pocket enough wealth that they no longer have to work to maintain a moderate lifestyle, and then move to a place that interests them and work on other pursuits.
I think 90% failure rate at every stage is honest. I mean even stage 1 I am sure has an ever-increasing number of people that "want to learn to code" or go through an online bootcamp, watch a youtube series on javascript, etc. and never code professionally a day in their lives.
I think it is challenging (but not impossible) to fail at stage 1. If you join any tech company that is already public and part of their compensation is incentive stock options and/or restricted stock which is refreshed annually, then 4+ years can deliver a pretty solid "boost" for you to do Stage 2. Stage 2 is harder of course, but 90% harder? A bunch of companies fail in the seed/series A stage. That can happen reasonably quickly (1 - 2 years), so stage 2 can take 3 - 5 years to catch the right one. And then stage 3 is kind of up to you're ability to hit the market at the right time. More difficult still, but not impossible.
In games there are also production companies, and the studio might stay intact for years but produce their own games, as a stage 1.5 or alternate Stage 2. Most of the musicians who side with the recording industry have followed a similar pattern. They build their own studio (different definition of studio) to greatly increase their slice of the pie.
This is such an understatement it feels like the equivalent to «buy low, sell high»
Nicely summarized.
advice for networking in stage 1?
Get to know people. Talk to them at lunch time, or offer to help on their project when they are stuck, and ask for help on your project when your stuck.
The latter is especially helpful for differentiating between people who talk a good game and actually know what they are talking about.
Practice not assuming anything about someone based on their appearances. Learn to listen uncritically so that you can hear the insights they bring to the table. I know some folks who are genius level smart and have a horrible time trying to express themselves. I've often suspected it was because they think about things so differently that it is hard for them to translate how they think about something into concepts "normal" people understand.
The latter is especially helpful for differentiating between people who talk a good game and actually know what they are talking about.
Practice not assuming anything about someone based on their appearances. Learn to listen uncritically so that you can hear the insights they bring to the table. I know some folks who are genius level smart and have a horrible time trying to express themselves. I've often suspected it was because they think about things so differently that it is hard for them to translate how they think about something into concepts "normal" people understand.
Well, the physical engineering world already has an alternative to unionization: contracting firms.
The best mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers in the world work for big engineering firms (and make mega bucks).
We have a few relatively small contracting firms in software right now, but there is no reason why we could not have large Software Engineering firms that can handle entire design and engineering for any game studio far better and more efficiently than the studios could ever do themselves.
For example, if the top 1000 game designers and developers started their own firm, then I imagine every studio would be forced to use them at whatever price for competitive reasons.
Are you a VC? Invest in that. Insta-monopoly. Top talent (especially in bulk) is very much the most difficult thing to replicate in any market.
The best mechanical, electrical, and chemical engineers in the world work for big engineering firms (and make mega bucks).
We have a few relatively small contracting firms in software right now, but there is no reason why we could not have large Software Engineering firms that can handle entire design and engineering for any game studio far better and more efficiently than the studios could ever do themselves.
For example, if the top 1000 game designers and developers started their own firm, then I imagine every studio would be forced to use them at whatever price for competitive reasons.
Are you a VC? Invest in that. Insta-monopoly. Top talent (especially in bulk) is very much the most difficult thing to replicate in any market.
Hopefully this works out.
We see a lot of "core member of great thing founds own thing" and you really want to see them succeed but having an organization succeed takes a a lot of people with lots of different skills. I'm not convinced that any given jumble of highly talented folks actually produce something if we somehow ran a but of iterations of "jumble of highly talented folks".
I've heard plenty of stories of such folks going their own way to be stopped by basic business type problems like project management, just managing people, maintaining focus, raising money and keeping investors happy, etc.
We see a lot of "core member of great thing founds own thing" and you really want to see them succeed but having an organization succeed takes a a lot of people with lots of different skills. I'm not convinced that any given jumble of highly talented folks actually produce something if we somehow ran a but of iterations of "jumble of highly talented folks".
I've heard plenty of stories of such folks going their own way to be stopped by basic business type problems like project management, just managing people, maintaining focus, raising money and keeping investors happy, etc.
They have a great group of people. I’ve worked with maybe 6-7 of them directly, and they’re all on my list of people I’d actively want to work with again, across a pretty wide set of skills.
The ones I just know of are also people friends say are both great at their stuff and good to work with, so I have high hopes they’ll make some awesome stuff.
The ones I just know of are also people friends say are both great at their stuff and good to work with, so I have high hopes they’ll make some awesome stuff.
Mike Morhaime was the president of blizzard for quite a while. He should be very familiar with the management side of things.
He founded Blizzard, he can probably do it again. I think he is the last of the early Blizzard people to go off on his own, so we'll see if the success was a fluke or if there is something special about him.
I really hope so. It just takes a lot of pieces to really make a thing.
Even with big names backing those studios, it's pretty hard to release good games from scratch and to last.
As an ex-Blizzard engineer (left last year shortly after the 2019 layoffs) this makes so much sense to me. I saw Mike a few weeks before he announced his resignation and it was so obvious to me that he was super sad about leaving. Rumors were rife at the time that he was being "forced out" by Activision and I think that ended up being the case.
Mike left Blizzard some months before the layoffs were announced and the general conclusion was that Mike was told by Bobby Kotick that he had to do the layoffs or leave Blizzard, and hence Mike ended up resigning.
His resignation email said all the same stuff like "Mike wanting to spend more time with family" etc etc. But now it's fairly clear that was all crap, he still wanted to run a games company, he just wanted to be free from Activision and their general heavy handed management and manipulation of Blizzard.
Mike left Blizzard some months before the layoffs were announced and the general conclusion was that Mike was told by Bobby Kotick that he had to do the layoffs or leave Blizzard, and hence Mike ended up resigning.
His resignation email said all the same stuff like "Mike wanting to spend more time with family" etc etc. But now it's fairly clear that was all crap, he still wanted to run a games company, he just wanted to be free from Activision and their general heavy handed management and manipulation of Blizzard.
>he just wanted to be free from Activision and their general heavy handed management and manipulation of Blizzard.
I'm curious to hear some anecdotes about this. I've worked at an Activision studio and the central management mostly stayed out of the way. There were meetings and green lights and deadlines but it seemed pretty normal. We didn't see a lot of "corporate says X so change everything!" From my experience the studios have a lot of autonomy and Blizzard is even more in control of its own destiny.
I'm curious to hear some anecdotes about this. I've worked at an Activision studio and the central management mostly stayed out of the way. There were meetings and green lights and deadlines but it seemed pretty normal. We didn't see a lot of "corporate says X so change everything!" From my experience the studios have a lot of autonomy and Blizzard is even more in control of its own destiny.
Or it might be the case where your reporting lines were able to do their job and keep you away from all the upper-level politics? I also used to work on online game companies and thought that we were given lots of autonomy like you until I found our director and producer fiercely fighting back against all the pressures coming from corporate and sales guys in executive level meetings. Because of this experience, I wouldn't take those autonomy for granted; Mike probably also had done the same thing more than 10 years and given up for some reasons.
Yeah sometimes you don't realize just how good a job your boss is doing till they're gone. Then the dam breaks and all the shit starts flooding downhill.
Perhaps. I just find that every time I question the scapegoating of Activision with my own experience I never get any concrete details or first person experience.
Its just too much of a coincidence to me that at the same time they got acquired by a Bobby Kotick run company they started churning out games that, while not completely terrible, when compared to their older efforts were uninspired, generic trash made by money hungry assholes.
It never felt like something Blizzard would do, it felt like exactly what Activision would do. Maybe too many of the key people had left at that point. It happens to a lot of companies when they get big.
It never felt like something Blizzard would do, it felt like exactly what Activision would do. Maybe too many of the key people had left at that point. It happens to a lot of companies when they get big.
Blizzard's way of developing games isn't (or wasn't) the same as any other Activision studio. Blizzard was always "find the fun, take as long as you want, cancel a game if it's not top tier quality."
Most of Activision's portfolio is franchises with a set amount of change per iteration.
I can imagine this mismatch in style causing issues.
Most of Activision's portfolio is franchises with a set amount of change per iteration.
I can imagine this mismatch in style causing issues.
Fortunately, there's no longer such a mismatch in styles. Their last few projects (Hearthstone expansions, Warcraft III: Remastered, the last WoW expansion, and quite likely the upcoming one) are hot messes from a quality and fun standpoint.
The Blizzard of the past decade is nothing like the Blizzard of the 90s/2000s. They're a husk of their former selves.
How big was the studio compared to Blizzard? Blizzard is an Activision strategic asset, their name is on the door, etc. It stands to reason the relationship might be quite different compared even to something like 'important studio that does important releases of an important franchise'.
I think Blizzard is expensive in terms of headcount. In 2012 apparently they had 4700 employees.
Maybe your studio looked more like activision wanted it to?
[deleted]
> Morhaime will act as CEO of Dreamhaven as a whole, which will be based in Irvine, California. It marks his first major move in the games industry since stepping down as Blizzard president in 2018 and leaving the company he helped create in 2019.
Sounds like the typical expiration date for a non-compete, so I assume they've been planning to do this for some time.
Let's hope it works out. In this era of constant consolidation, I'm always happy to see new companies spring up.
Sounds like the typical expiration date for a non-compete, so I assume they've been planning to do this for some time.
Let's hope it works out. In this era of constant consolidation, I'm always happy to see new companies spring up.
It's in California, so non-competes were probably not the issue.
In CA, non-competes are still valid against executives, founders, and any employee with a material share of the ownership of the company (for a multi-billion dollar publicly traded company, a material share can be a fraction of a % of the total value of the company).
A "non-compete" in California is very enforceable. Though not in the way that most people think of non-competes. "I will pay you $X, at $Y per month to not do that thing for the next $Z months. If you decide to do that thing before $Z months have elapsed, the money dries up. Also, the amount of money you receive each month increases with each passing month."
I did a deal with my small company in 2008 where I sold IP. I personally agreed not to go and recreate that IP for at least 5 years, and for that, I would receive revenue share from the current IP.
I also did a deal with a different small company I created at the tail end of 2016 whereby I received a cash payout with an attached clause of being sued into oblivion should I a) attempt to work with the client in some capacity for a period of time or b) talk about client so as not to jeopardise the in-place contracts. The company that acquired my company was interested in the contracts that my company had with a client, not the IP so much.
Non-competes in California are very enforceable, but they usually come with money attached and are not used to bludgeon a Sandwich Artist from earning a living at the deli across the road.
I did a deal with my small company in 2008 where I sold IP. I personally agreed not to go and recreate that IP for at least 5 years, and for that, I would receive revenue share from the current IP.
I also did a deal with a different small company I created at the tail end of 2016 whereby I received a cash payout with an attached clause of being sued into oblivion should I a) attempt to work with the client in some capacity for a period of time or b) talk about client so as not to jeopardise the in-place contracts. The company that acquired my company was interested in the contracts that my company had with a client, not the IP so much.
Non-competes in California are very enforceable, but they usually come with money attached and are not used to bludgeon a Sandwich Artist from earning a living at the deli across the road.
I have respect for Dustin Bowder's vision with regards to Diablo III, however disastrous it proved to be with the game's hardcore fans. It misunderstood what the franchise was about and fundamentally went against some of its core "values", but at the end of the day, pre-nerf Diablo III at Inferno was one of the most heavy skill-based kite-based arpg to date. You had to be there.
I believe you mean Jay Wilson? Dustin Browder's involvement with Diablo 3 was only from a Strike Team perspective. Browder is more known for his work on Starcraft 2.
Man, I hope so
Diablo 3's hardest difficulty at launch was a nightmare. You had to move around with Ninja Gaiden/Dark Souls-level precision in a game engine that just was _not_ designed to give you that much precise control
So often I'd be trying to run out of something, accidentally click a monster instead of a patch of open ground, and my guy would stop to turn around and shoot. It was horrible
Not only was it un-fun to play, it actively made me feel bad. "Hey, game's over, you're just not good enough to play any more Diablo. Get out."
Diablo 3's hardest difficulty at launch was a nightmare. You had to move around with Ninja Gaiden/Dark Souls-level precision in a game engine that just was _not_ designed to give you that much precise control
So often I'd be trying to run out of something, accidentally click a monster instead of a patch of open ground, and my guy would stop to turn around and shoot. It was horrible
Not only was it un-fun to play, it actively made me feel bad. "Hey, game's over, you're just not good enough to play any more Diablo. Get out."
> You had to move around with Ninja Gaiden/Dark Souls-level precision in a game engine that just was _not_ designed to give you that much precise control
This is the direction Path of Exile has gone and frankly it sucks. It more closely resembles bullet-hell games than old school Diablo 2.
This is the direction Path of Exile has gone and frankly it sucks. It more closely resembles bullet-hell games than old school Diablo 2.
You actually try to dodge things in these games? The control scheme is so horrible for that, I always presumed the correct way to play is “if you’re not nuking everything on the screen with ease, your build is wrong and you’re not strong enough. Come back later.”
You still have to dodge things because there are one-shot mechanics, it's just that the game is visually very noisy and the visual cues to dodge the thing is often covered or very hard to see because there's so much going on (lots of monsters, monster projectiles, player projectiles, etc.) and it seems like there's no effort to make the really painful things stand out against the background noise.
Yeah I had a lot of fun running Inferno Belial back then. You had to dodge every single attack. As flawed as the whole game was, I enjoyed that part a lot.
To me this hints at the core of why small/niche games will always have a place. Diablo 3 and any other mass-consumption AAA title is going to have to compromise some of the edginess to gain wider acceptance. I personally thought the D3 launch experience into the first few months was incredible. That said, I can see how it upset some of the fan base for various reasons.
Overwatch is another example where you can see this battle unfold. There are now 2 completely separate competitive ranked queue options with different rule sets in order to bridge this gap in gameplay expectations. I personally prefer the unconstrained queue where more dynamic teamwork is required, but a lot of players prefer the role queue where they can expect certain meta styles. I think both are perfectly valid ways to play the game, and this approach might be a good example of ways we might be able to handle these varying expectations in a more general way.
Overwatch is another example where you can see this battle unfold. There are now 2 completely separate competitive ranked queue options with different rule sets in order to bridge this gap in gameplay expectations. I personally prefer the unconstrained queue where more dynamic teamwork is required, but a lot of players prefer the role queue where they can expect certain meta styles. I think both are perfectly valid ways to play the game, and this approach might be a good example of ways we might be able to handle these varying expectations in a more general way.
> pre-nerf Diablo III at Inferno was one of the most heavy skill-based kite-based arpg to date
Fun content, but anywhere past Act 2 was dramatically overtuned. Ultimately you don't want the only reasonable path to be cheese strats.
Fun content, but anywhere past Act 2 was dramatically overtuned. Ultimately you don't want the only reasonable path to be cheese strats.
[deleted]
Morhaime showed up to HomeStory Cup (StarCraft II tournament) in 2019, & took part in their poker night: https://www.twitch.tv/videos/511760157?t=9h20m7s
It lets you see him relaxing as a pretty chill guy. He really cares about creating good games
One of the insightful remarks he made was that StarCraft was easier to balance than WarCraft because it had so much more asymmetry
It lets you see him relaxing as a pretty chill guy. He really cares about creating good games
One of the insightful remarks he made was that StarCraft was easier to balance than WarCraft because it had so much more asymmetry
I hope at least one of these studios is working on an RTS.
Do you happen to know roughly where he comes in, or where the best parts are? I am scrubbing but it’s so long!
9h20m7s. For the most part he's being a polite poker player by keeping his mouth shut. Tells a small story at 11h05m30s
Thank you!
I hope they replicate the high level of product quality that Blizzard was shipping from 1995 to 2012 but not the thing where they're infamous in the game industry for underpaying people.
I'm really glad to hear this. Morhaime, Bowder, and all deserve to create games that they feel attached to. Just grab Samwise and Metzen so we can go back to the 2000s :)
sdcsvx
Url changed from https://www.ign.com/articles/mike-morhaime-new-company-blizz..., which points to this.
There's also https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/09/23/mike-m....
There's also https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/09/23/mike-m....
Another original source on this appears to be https://www.washingtonpost.com/video-games/2020/09/23/mike-m....
Interesting! I think Morhaime retained a lot of the "Blizzard spirit" that many feel has been lost in recent years. In a sense, Morhaime leaving Blizzard felt like the transition to the new "Activision-Blizzard" model was now finally complete. Something more than Morhaime alone left Blizzard that day and it felt terrible to watch Blizzcon and not really see a happy man.
It was apparently Morhaime who gave us Diablo 3 fans the scraps of the cancelled second expansion as free content update as pure fan service. Without these and the concepts they introduced, Diablo 3 would have lacked major end game features essential for its longevity like Greater Rifts and Kanai's Cube. He truly understood the importance of gamer relations and from others it sounds like he has a big gaming heart.
It was apparently Morhaime who gave us Diablo 3 fans the scraps of the cancelled second expansion as free content update as pure fan service. Without these and the concepts they introduced, Diablo 3 would have lacked major end game features essential for its longevity like Greater Rifts and Kanai's Cube. He truly understood the importance of gamer relations and from others it sounds like he has a big gaming heart.
Amy word on what the new games will be?
The name "Dreamhaven" is very clever.
* To players it sounds like a typical company stuido name. Quite nice
* To current and ex-blizzard staff it is a beacon call. "Come and dream again here"
* To Activision management it seems like a bit of an insult in that Blizzard was no longer a place where you could dream.
But maybe I am reading too much into it.
* To players it sounds like a typical company stuido name. Quite nice
* To current and ex-blizzard staff it is a beacon call. "Come and dream again here"
* To Activision management it seems like a bit of an insult in that Blizzard was no longer a place where you could dream.
But maybe I am reading too much into it.
edit - error
I remember sitting right behind Mike Morhaime and Dustin Browder for the very first StarCraft 2 tournament at BlizzCon 2011 and I remember when Mvp won the championship and the whole crowd went absolutely insane. I went deaf, Dustin Browder was hollering, it was an experience for sure.
I'm very excited to see where this goes. To me it will kind of make or break the entire Blizzard debate, whether they fell apart because they failed to adaptto the times (my theory), or they actually were constrained so aggressively by short term cash-first behaviors that they sold their soul (I do not believe this).
If Dreamhaven creates successful, enjoyable games the answer will be clear.
If Dreamhaven creates successful, enjoyable games the answer will be clear.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1G6oRuu9tLg
The short version is Blizzard is a shell of their former glory, and they are making decisions based on cash and appeasement of the Chinese govt. Most of you probably remember the Diablo: Immortal reception (Chinese mobile game presented as a keynote at the American, PC-playing blizzcon fan convention).
I deeply hope Morhaime is able to recapture the lightning in a bottle that existed at old Blizzard, and this doesn't end up as another Hellgate: London fiasco.