-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Completely Transparent Game Development - Will It Ever Happen? Should It Ever Happen?
- Thread starter Eternalgamer
- Start date
No, everyone that works on this industry be it on development itself, marketing, PR or anything related already have many things to deal with. lol
Heck no. I can imagine thousands of people trying to dictate what they want to see in the game, express frustrations over setbacks and slow pace, complain about not having enough information, indignantly claim they could do better, and then angerly speculate that the game is gonna suck because a photo showed a woman on the development team.
Gamers can be a toxic bunch.
Gamers can be a toxic bunch.
I think there's some perks for transparency.
Look at the shit Bioware pulled this generation. We wouldn't have known the horrible treatment the developers suffered had it not been for Jason at Kotaku.
Also think about Blizzard's cancelled games. Artists put years of their lives into projects, only for it to be shutdown. We may never see their efforts.
With transparency, I'd hope at least some of the following would happen:
Look at the shit Bioware pulled this generation. We wouldn't have known the horrible treatment the developers suffered had it not been for Jason at Kotaku.
Also think about Blizzard's cancelled games. Artists put years of their lives into projects, only for it to be shutdown. We may never see their efforts.
With transparency, I'd hope at least some of the following would happen:
- Managers and marketing can't lie about how great things are going and bullshit us with unrealistic trailers.
- Leads will have to focus on design early. No more being indecisive for years and rebooting.
- Bad games get cancelled in months rather than years.
- Critical issues pointed out and fixed early on, instead of being discovered at launch (or swept under the rug until day 1 patch).
- More importantly, treatment and work conditions of developers may improve if more eyes are on the the management.
I hope not.
I'm completely in favor of leaks and indiscretions as a way to interfere with the carefully crafted plans of powerful companies.
But a completely transparent process ? Given the toxic nature of public audiences on the modern internet, it would be a recipe for a disaster. *That* would be hell for the devs.
I'm completely in favor of leaks and indiscretions as a way to interfere with the carefully crafted plans of powerful companies.
But a completely transparent process ? Given the toxic nature of public audiences on the modern internet, it would be a recipe for a disaster. *That* would be hell for the devs.
That's the bottom line. Total transparency can be cool but it's unnecessary and can be problematic. Extreme secrecy is also unnecessary and clearly problematic.
Yup, and the reason publishers want extreme secrecy is to hide anti-consumer/predatory practices and how they mistreat labor. Individual developers may want the excitement of surprise reveal and have no ulterior motives, but the way the secrecy benefits publishers is mainly a negative.
No amount of transparency will review work practices. Even if you work there you can be oblivious of how others are being treated.
As for cancelled products, this happens all the time in creatives fields, and other fields too! So many fields are driven towards internal green light processes, and lots of near completed products get shelves.
There are artists and coders and designers and QA and lots of people that work on these. Demanding to see the art assets doesn't benefit anyone, and robs the company of the option to use these assets in a future game (which sometimes happens).
Does it suck to be unable to show all of your work as part of your portfolio? Yes, but that's normal.
Even within a company there is work which is kept 'secret'. Sometimes it is better for work to be siloed and reviewed periodically. People tend to have a knee jerk response to unfinished work, even internally. I once had to completed redo some artwork because a coder shared an early draft and someone important said they didn't like it, so the knee jerk response was to nuke it entirely rather than let it be finished.
Bad work practices suck, but only games companies get referred to as being 'secretive'. People making movies and books and TV shows and music don't get called secret. People working for music streaming sites or services don't get referred to as secretive.
In the era of modern crowdfunding via Kickstarter Double Fine was poised to make the transparency angle stick, but the various difficulties it has faced after the honeymoon of 2014-2015 (e.g. split episodes, delays, the so-called embargos, and relative commercial failure), together with what has happened with kickstarted projects after it (whilst spoilt by very bad apples such as Mighty Number 9 the overall delivery profile has been mixed) it'd be hard to get 2PP or what not to be able to cover an entire production run for a small/midsized dev again
That said, there's still these if anyone's interested, I've kind of lost touch in the scene gravitating towards the events like BitSummit
Won't happen. The internet fan bases are entirely to far gone in the rabid side of things for anyone to want to deal with the stress and anxiety it would cause.
I always think of Mega Man Legends 3 and how that blew up in their faces. Even a slight bit of fan interaction turned hostile and bitter almost immediately. Games get cancelled all the time and decisions get changed all the time in development but the MM fanbase was not having it. Anything they did not agree with or just straight up not want to hear was really frightening. Even now seeing this game's name come up always has some scary words following it. Its always what I think of when people say devs should show us a title from concept to release.
I always think of Mega Man Legends 3 and how that blew up in their faces. Even a slight bit of fan interaction turned hostile and bitter almost immediately. Games get cancelled all the time and decisions get changed all the time in development but the MM fanbase was not having it. Anything they did not agree with or just straight up not want to hear was really frightening. Even now seeing this game's name come up always has some scary words following it. Its always what I think of when people say devs should show us a title from concept to release.
Those industries are absolutely secretive, espionage-y, and NDA-happy in their own ways and called as much. But they do release a lot more helpful, basic information than the AAA games industry currently does.
The entertainment industry has cultivated rabid fandom with hype and spoiler culture. They've done it to themselves. People would be less maniacal if info wasn't treated like it's CIA confidential-special.
What would you gain from seeing a product you would never be able to play, except negativity thrown at the specific studio (which is already the case)
Do you really want to see the game equivalent of an aborted fetus? (Trust me, no developer wants you to see a highly unfinished game laid bare for the world to judge) Its also incredibly pointless.
It sucks not to be able to show off your hard work but I would never want that to be in the form of a highly unfinished game
edit: I apologize if I come across as a bit bitter or crude, but the other thread showed me the light of some of the poster here who would happily see a developer go out of business and the lively hood of the hard working people that make these games possible put to risk, just for them to get their leaks.
Last edited:
Yeah i agree with this. There should be other ways to hold companies responsible without hurting the developers.
I'm not sure if total transparency is ever going to happen, nor should it for a variety of reasons, but this culture of secrets needs to stop.
Total transparency is bad. We don't need to know everything all the time. It would interrupt the artistic flow and vision of a project.
Extreme secrecy is also bad. Holding things so close to the chest just creates an unhealthy cycle of hype and spoiler culture, that most of the time we end up doing ourselves.
There should be some sort of balance between the two. Movies don't catch this flack because they tend to report on projects early in their development phase and give updates as necessary. I actually think the film model should be used in gaming.
Extreme secrecy is also bad. Holding things so close to the chest just creates an unhealthy cycle of hype and spoiler culture, that most of the time we end up doing ourselves.
There should be some sort of balance between the two. Movies don't catch this flack because they tend to report on projects early in their development phase and give updates as necessary. I actually think the film model should be used in gaming.
- (Blank) film is in development phase at (blank) studio.
- (Blank) just attached a writer>director>star
- (Blank) just began production in place
- (Blank) just wrapped principal photography
- (Blank) released trailer
- (Blank) in theaters
it happens with kickstarter updates, but at the same time folks are now seeing stuff they may dislike off an update. Specifically with Kickstarter if you back the game on a specific vision and during development that vision shifts then the argument now is if you still want to support that vision.
My only real example off this, outside of seeing someone on ERA's game as she develops it step by step and things change dramatically from one month to the next on various aspects, would be the Kickstarter title Soul Saga.
The guy was VERY open with his kickstarter updates during the first year. He didn't have an exact vision on his game either though. This meant that character designs were changing drastically every X amount of months. To the point the current product isn't the game I originally backed, at least visually the art style and character designs are completely different to the game I saw and wanted.
If a game already has a clear vision and it won't be changing to drastically, such as an established franchise/a sequel, then I don't see why not have dev give updates.
My only real example off this, outside of seeing someone on ERA's game as she develops it step by step and things change dramatically from one month to the next on various aspects, would be the Kickstarter title Soul Saga.
The guy was VERY open with his kickstarter updates during the first year. He didn't have an exact vision on his game either though. This meant that character designs were changing drastically every X amount of months. To the point the current product isn't the game I originally backed, at least visually the art style and character designs are completely different to the game I saw and wanted.
If a game already has a clear vision and it won't be changing to drastically, such as an established franchise/a sequel, then I don't see why not have dev give updates.
Gamers cannot deal with the idea of a product being different upon conception to when it is released - it has caused dozens of upsets/freakouts/tantrums in the past. People still can't get over Watch Dogs 1 or Dark Souls 2. They have to bring it up in threads even a generation later.
A large, loud amount of people in this hobby aren't mature enough to deal with a creative product changing through production. Can you imagine the amount of threads/reactions every time a game shifted focus of abandoned a mechanic that some gamers liked but the director didn't?
Until this entire industry/hobby grows up, it's not something that I feel would be pleasant.
A large, loud amount of people in this hobby aren't mature enough to deal with a creative product changing through production. Can you imagine the amount of threads/reactions every time a game shifted focus of abandoned a mechanic that some gamers liked but the director didn't?
Until this entire industry/hobby grows up, it's not something that I feel would be pleasant.
I'd love it to and to be honest, we badly need the public and press to be educated.
However if watching Star Citizen's development has taught me anything, it's that it will trigger a shitstorm over every normal things such as iteration and cutting things let alone when shit genuinely happens. It also will cost a shitload of money in lost developer time.
The question is : why would anyone do that? Almost nobody but fellow professionals and educated gamers/journalists will understand while the majority criticizes you for every little thing.
However if watching Star Citizen's development has taught me anything, it's that it will trigger a shitstorm over every normal things such as iteration and cutting things let alone when shit genuinely happens. It also will cost a shitload of money in lost developer time.
The question is : why would anyone do that? Almost nobody but fellow professionals and educated gamers/journalists will understand while the majority criticizes you for every little thing.
It's cool, man, I don't think that's a bitter question. I do feel there's lots of emotion from people in these discussions (including myself). I imagine most people here just want things to be better for the developers, or they want better quality games, or both. Kotaku's reports on Bioware for both Andromeda and Anthem has made me very bitter towards the leadership and practices at some studios.
As for that particular point I made, I suppose I was thinking like an artist outside of a production mindset.
From my experience, paintings and 3d models take a great deal of work and refinement to make. I imagine lots of passion and hard work are put into these projects. I feel like it'd be a bummer if a big Starcraft fan over there worked on their dream IP for years, but then it shuts down. Some artists may never get to show what they've done (Depends on the studio, Blizz has shown some work from Ghost and Titan).
Anyway, you're also right that it's an unfinished project. I am sure there are creators from Anthem who are not thrilled with what was released. And when I think about it now, I'd hope most of the work on a cancelled project would be unfinished or placeholder. I guess it depends on what stage a project is at when it's shutdown.
I wish doomed projects would shutdown sooner than years. I hate that it takes so much time to reach the conclusion that a project is not worth investing in further.
Last edited:
maybe for smaller indie stuff something like this can work, and probably has already worked.
but for large AAA titles that can sometimes take 8 years from conception to release and go through countless revisions - gamers don't know what they want, and they will derail projects by playing backseat director
i watched that god of war documentary that Sony put out a few weeks ago and I keep thinking back to that. imagine being cory barlog and spearheading this total reboot of this huge franchise, meanwhile the gremlins on resetera make 40 page threads every other week criticizing and misconstruing something the studio is iterating on. nobody wants that added stress and can probably lead to lots of resentment
not all feedback is valuable
all that being said, i do think its important that people be better educated on how games are actually made
but for large AAA titles that can sometimes take 8 years from conception to release and go through countless revisions - gamers don't know what they want, and they will derail projects by playing backseat director
i watched that god of war documentary that Sony put out a few weeks ago and I keep thinking back to that. imagine being cory barlog and spearheading this total reboot of this huge franchise, meanwhile the gremlins on resetera make 40 page threads every other week criticizing and misconstruing something the studio is iterating on. nobody wants that added stress and can probably lead to lots of resentment
not all feedback is valuable
all that being said, i do think its important that people be better educated on how games are actually made
I'm sorry for responding out of order.
My point on that was an emotional knee-jerk. I wasn't thinking like a professional might. I somehow forgot how often art is thrown out or erased.
Last edited:
I mean I can know everything there is to know about the next Marvel film but god forbid we know anything that's happening with COD 29 or Halo 84. So yes, more transparency.
the intention is good, but its not gonna work, sorry.
1. It's boring, most documentary pretty much highlight the most interesting parts of making the game, majority of the time, its boring, like most work. You really don't want to see people discussed mundane stuff.
2. Extra resource to the dev and parties involved.
3. Other parties involved might not want it due do to their policy.
And like seriously, have you seen internet comment with COD or MOBA balance patch? change a little things, and someone throw a death threat to dev.
1. It's boring, most documentary pretty much highlight the most interesting parts of making the game, majority of the time, its boring, like most work. You really don't want to see people discussed mundane stuff.
2. Extra resource to the dev and parties involved.
3. Other parties involved might not want it due do to their policy.
And like seriously, have you seen internet comment with COD or MOBA balance patch? change a little things, and someone throw a death threat to dev.
Yup. Should stay out of WoW forums when changes are made. You'd think Blizzard personally rapes and killed people close to some posters with their vitriolic hyperbole.
I'll throw my hat in the ring that it'd be a super bad idea for the majority of games but particularly for larger ones, as someone else who has worked on large AAA projects that had "downgradeaton!!" accusations thrown at them. Day-to-day shows/cameras/updates would be boring with very little to see and too much time and effort needing to be spent on their production, and even weekly or monthly updates would be disruptive at best but potentially destructive in the worst cases.
Double Fine managed it with Broken Age - it was very cool, fun and interesting even to me as someone doing it anyway - but they were very careful with what they told people about the game and didn't actually spoil much in the way of content in its episodes - OP was asking about total transparency, so I suppose that isn't it. Everyone else's comments about viewers getting attached to concepts that don't work out for whatever reason are totally 120% on-point.
At most, an episodic series that aired after a project came out could be made, because the decisions are set and people have played the game, but I worry about the effect it'd have on a team with cameras wandering around... so, eeeh, I dunno. It'd have to be extremely rigourously controlled with specific agreements on when and what got filmed at the very least but even that might not be enough.
Double Fine managed it with Broken Age - it was very cool, fun and interesting even to me as someone doing it anyway - but they were very careful with what they told people about the game and didn't actually spoil much in the way of content in its episodes - OP was asking about total transparency, so I suppose that isn't it. Everyone else's comments about viewers getting attached to concepts that don't work out for whatever reason are totally 120% on-point.
At most, an episodic series that aired after a project came out could be made, because the decisions are set and people have played the game, but I worry about the effect it'd have on a team with cameras wandering around... so, eeeh, I dunno. It'd have to be extremely rigourously controlled with specific agreements on when and what got filmed at the very least but even that might not be enough.
Completely transparent? No. However I do think that game announcement/progress should basically be treated the same way hollywood does.
The thing is announced before it goes into production. People know officially when production starts and when it wraps up. Casting involvement is known as soon as it occurs. Things like that. You wouldn't know the content of the game (in that you might see a few screenshots/trailers as time goes on, but you're not seeing full gameplay systems or the like before they're ready), but would know the general ideas.
Rather than only finding out the above 1 year to 6 months before release.*
(* Not including Square Enix where you find out about a game 10 years before it is ready and don't hear anything inbetween)
The thing is announced before it goes into production. People know officially when production starts and when it wraps up. Casting involvement is known as soon as it occurs. Things like that. You wouldn't know the content of the game (in that you might see a few screenshots/trailers as time goes on, but you're not seeing full gameplay systems or the like before they're ready), but would know the general ideas.
Rather than only finding out the above 1 year to 6 months before release.*
(* Not including Square Enix where you find out about a game 10 years before it is ready and don't hear anything inbetween)