tehrik-e-insaaf
Member
ANY MOD please change title to - Is the era of the non-technical non-gamer MBA executive over? - poor choice of original thread title is leading to lots of people not even reading thread just attacking me
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to make it long - but I'll try to make it sweet -
I recently attended a discussion with Peter Moore, and came away extremely disappointed.
Besides his general ignorance about the industry - suggesting "Blu Ray" as the reason for PS2's success (???) - he went on and on about how great Call of Duty was, how great social games were (inspite of Zynga's collapse), how the Wii U was a failure and Nintendo should exit the hardware business but their Japanese pride won't let them (unlike Anglo-Saxon pragmatism I guess?), and how successful the decision to kill the Dreamcast was (cause it all worked out for Sega going third party and all) - there were so many incorrect or dogmatic things he said that I felt like laughing out loud at certain points...
Anyways, I guess I shouldn't have expected much, I mean, this is pretty much par for the course for these executives right? The majority of executives in the gaming industry aren't actually gamers, they are marketing-types that sold sugared soda or Nike shoes, and were good at drinking beer and playing golf with retail executives or schmoozing investors to buy company stock. This isn't just the executives - even the finance-types like Michael Pachter don't play games, know little about the creative process, and understand nothing about technology (the running joke among some of my hedge fund friends is "Michael NotAFactor"). These guys mostly got into their positions through "contacts" and because they had exclusive information - not because they were technically distinguished in any way.
Now I'm picking on Moore and Pachter, but let's be real here, Nintendo of America, SCEA, and most of the people I know at MSFT are really no different. MSFT is run by Ballmer, a guy who knows nothing about developing software or games and sweats profusely screaming "Developers" to get people to build products for his platform. Initially, the people running Xbox were increasingly marketing types and the platform struggled burning so much cash with nothing to show for it. Even Reggie is also a frat boy that isn't an engineer or designer, isn't really a gamer, and probably knows very little about the games he jumps up and down to sell.
In a world where information was slow and retail point of sale was critical to capturing the imagination of a gamer, where investors relied on equity research firms to get information about companies and their release schedules, these types of guys could be king makers, they could help junk sell millions of units, despite the fact that some of them are intellectually bankrupt, and have zero appreciation for the craftsmanship of the industry.
Those things might have been ok back in the day, but we live in a different world today. We live in a world where retail and channel are less important. We increasingly (although by no means majority) live in a world where investors respect engineer-run companies more than MBA run companies. The world is going digital, and the value that the MBAs brought to these gaming companies is severely limited.
I believe in three major things that will drive the success of game companies going forward: DEVELOPERS, DIGITAL, and DRAW. These forces threaten the extinction of the non-gaming non-technical MBA executive.
DEVELOPERS - Engineers close engineers. There is a reason why Gabe Newell attracts amazing people at Valve. There is a reason why Yamauchi picked Iwata - he knew it was all about attracting people who like to work on your hardware and appreciate your vision - and now Nintendo has amazing relationships with Japanese developers. These guys are engineers, coders, developers. Yes they have found success on the business side, but they know the daily grind of cranking out games, and they have a deep appreciation for it. Developers make games, and games are what drives platforms - no matter it be portable, console, or smartphone.
DIGITAL - The back-room retail deals that companies used to get their products onto stores are increasingly irrelevant. So playing golf, slapping Secretary's asses, and getting drunk is now increasingly irrelevant. Information about good and bad games moves freely and is shaped through crowds (on forums and social media), not through exclusive journalist reviews (usually bought and paid for), not through what you see sitting on a retail shelf. People read developer interviews about the unique features of a game. People care more about what gaming developers say than what marketing lines the MBA executives run to push a particular game. The executive here has little or no value - if anything Reggie or Ballmer jumping up and down are embarrassments and a turn-off.
DRAW - Getting great intellectual property or developing great gameplay mechanics isn't about executives jumping on a trend and churning it out now. People don't buy Battlefield because it's a second best Call of Duty - hence, giving creative freedom to developers and working together as a team to respond to user feedback as an executive is critical. non tech mba executives here have zero value. Their MBA skills teach them to generally belittle developers who don't churn out another game by the holiday season, there is little trust between them and the development team. The idea of rolling up your sleeves is something that scares your typical MBA.
Now we have some failures like Sakaguchi (FF Movie) and some would argue Kutaragi (although the consumer division at Sony had insurmountable problems that stemmed from poor management from MBA-types), but by and large, the industry is ripe for disruptive change at the top of the pecking order given the forces I've discussed.
I remember speaking with John Carmack at a Quake Con over 10 years ago - he talked about how important Todd Hollenshead was to id Software - but he was very clear about how and why id was extremely successful - because the ownership and decisions were made in collaboration with the developers and engineers, in spite of the issues or conflicts (Paul Steed) that inevitably would arise. John, like Yamauchi, like Gabe, like some others, I think fundamentally understood that for game development and output to be successful, the executives needed to know their (very limited) place, and the developers and creative people needed an active role in the decision-making process. Maybe he was channeling a typical "this is Texas, so F*** the hierarchy" kinda perspective, but by and large I think he was onto something, and I believe fundamentally, the solution to any of the ills of the gaming industry today is to dis-intermediate decision making at the top, and ensure the non-tech marketing-type MBA is NOT EXCLUSIVELY the core of management - which I think isn't true for a lot of gaming companies.
Neutering them and putting them in their place will be a gift to all of us, and will ensure the respect and survival of the industry for the long-run.
Thanks for reading my perspective/rant! =)
-----------------
1. Apologize for using DUDEBRO diction, it was my fault and I eat humble pie - I was clearly a little upset at how ignorant the people around him were eating his words up and I made the mistake of poor word choice making my criticisms less valid and distracting from the larger point
2. I hope you guys can understand I'm not saying biz people are useless, I'm saying more collaborative decision-making important, and I outline the three D's why I think this is inevitable - Valve encourages its non-technical people to learn how to code for example or be involved in design
3. I don't think business people are useless, but I don't think successful game businesses will run like traditional corporate hierarchies anymore with completely functional people brought in from the shoe or food industries, I believe the Valve/Nintendo models are inevitable where there will be engineers with more traditional business people who are gamers
This isn't so much a rant as it is an observation of organizational behavior and where authority ultimate is held within the apparatus of the organization
------------------
Valve Handbook fyi
http://newcdn.flamehaus.com/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry to make it long - but I'll try to make it sweet -
I recently attended a discussion with Peter Moore, and came away extremely disappointed.
Besides his general ignorance about the industry - suggesting "Blu Ray" as the reason for PS2's success (???) - he went on and on about how great Call of Duty was, how great social games were (inspite of Zynga's collapse), how the Wii U was a failure and Nintendo should exit the hardware business but their Japanese pride won't let them (unlike Anglo-Saxon pragmatism I guess?), and how successful the decision to kill the Dreamcast was (cause it all worked out for Sega going third party and all) - there were so many incorrect or dogmatic things he said that I felt like laughing out loud at certain points...
Anyways, I guess I shouldn't have expected much, I mean, this is pretty much par for the course for these executives right? The majority of executives in the gaming industry aren't actually gamers, they are marketing-types that sold sugared soda or Nike shoes, and were good at drinking beer and playing golf with retail executives or schmoozing investors to buy company stock. This isn't just the executives - even the finance-types like Michael Pachter don't play games, know little about the creative process, and understand nothing about technology (the running joke among some of my hedge fund friends is "Michael NotAFactor"). These guys mostly got into their positions through "contacts" and because they had exclusive information - not because they were technically distinguished in any way.
Now I'm picking on Moore and Pachter, but let's be real here, Nintendo of America, SCEA, and most of the people I know at MSFT are really no different. MSFT is run by Ballmer, a guy who knows nothing about developing software or games and sweats profusely screaming "Developers" to get people to build products for his platform. Initially, the people running Xbox were increasingly marketing types and the platform struggled burning so much cash with nothing to show for it. Even Reggie is also a frat boy that isn't an engineer or designer, isn't really a gamer, and probably knows very little about the games he jumps up and down to sell.
In a world where information was slow and retail point of sale was critical to capturing the imagination of a gamer, where investors relied on equity research firms to get information about companies and their release schedules, these types of guys could be king makers, they could help junk sell millions of units, despite the fact that some of them are intellectually bankrupt, and have zero appreciation for the craftsmanship of the industry.
Those things might have been ok back in the day, but we live in a different world today. We live in a world where retail and channel are less important. We increasingly (although by no means majority) live in a world where investors respect engineer-run companies more than MBA run companies. The world is going digital, and the value that the MBAs brought to these gaming companies is severely limited.
I believe in three major things that will drive the success of game companies going forward: DEVELOPERS, DIGITAL, and DRAW. These forces threaten the extinction of the non-gaming non-technical MBA executive.
DEVELOPERS - Engineers close engineers. There is a reason why Gabe Newell attracts amazing people at Valve. There is a reason why Yamauchi picked Iwata - he knew it was all about attracting people who like to work on your hardware and appreciate your vision - and now Nintendo has amazing relationships with Japanese developers. These guys are engineers, coders, developers. Yes they have found success on the business side, but they know the daily grind of cranking out games, and they have a deep appreciation for it. Developers make games, and games are what drives platforms - no matter it be portable, console, or smartphone.
DIGITAL - The back-room retail deals that companies used to get their products onto stores are increasingly irrelevant. So playing golf, slapping Secretary's asses, and getting drunk is now increasingly irrelevant. Information about good and bad games moves freely and is shaped through crowds (on forums and social media), not through exclusive journalist reviews (usually bought and paid for), not through what you see sitting on a retail shelf. People read developer interviews about the unique features of a game. People care more about what gaming developers say than what marketing lines the MBA executives run to push a particular game. The executive here has little or no value - if anything Reggie or Ballmer jumping up and down are embarrassments and a turn-off.
DRAW - Getting great intellectual property or developing great gameplay mechanics isn't about executives jumping on a trend and churning it out now. People don't buy Battlefield because it's a second best Call of Duty - hence, giving creative freedom to developers and working together as a team to respond to user feedback as an executive is critical. non tech mba executives here have zero value. Their MBA skills teach them to generally belittle developers who don't churn out another game by the holiday season, there is little trust between them and the development team. The idea of rolling up your sleeves is something that scares your typical MBA.
Now we have some failures like Sakaguchi (FF Movie) and some would argue Kutaragi (although the consumer division at Sony had insurmountable problems that stemmed from poor management from MBA-types), but by and large, the industry is ripe for disruptive change at the top of the pecking order given the forces I've discussed.
I remember speaking with John Carmack at a Quake Con over 10 years ago - he talked about how important Todd Hollenshead was to id Software - but he was very clear about how and why id was extremely successful - because the ownership and decisions were made in collaboration with the developers and engineers, in spite of the issues or conflicts (Paul Steed) that inevitably would arise. John, like Yamauchi, like Gabe, like some others, I think fundamentally understood that for game development and output to be successful, the executives needed to know their (very limited) place, and the developers and creative people needed an active role in the decision-making process. Maybe he was channeling a typical "this is Texas, so F*** the hierarchy" kinda perspective, but by and large I think he was onto something, and I believe fundamentally, the solution to any of the ills of the gaming industry today is to dis-intermediate decision making at the top, and ensure the non-tech marketing-type MBA is NOT EXCLUSIVELY the core of management - which I think isn't true for a lot of gaming companies.
Neutering them and putting them in their place will be a gift to all of us, and will ensure the respect and survival of the industry for the long-run.
Thanks for reading my perspective/rant! =)
-----------------
1. Apologize for using DUDEBRO diction, it was my fault and I eat humble pie - I was clearly a little upset at how ignorant the people around him were eating his words up and I made the mistake of poor word choice making my criticisms less valid and distracting from the larger point
2. I hope you guys can understand I'm not saying biz people are useless, I'm saying more collaborative decision-making important, and I outline the three D's why I think this is inevitable - Valve encourages its non-technical people to learn how to code for example or be involved in design
3. I don't think business people are useless, but I don't think successful game businesses will run like traditional corporate hierarchies anymore with completely functional people brought in from the shoe or food industries, I believe the Valve/Nintendo models are inevitable where there will be engineers with more traditional business people who are gamers
This isn't so much a rant as it is an observation of organizational behavior and where authority ultimate is held within the apparatus of the organization
------------------
Valve Handbook fyi
http://newcdn.flamehaus.com/Valve_Handbook_LowRes.pdf
