Scotty W
Gold Member
I have been thinking about this for a while. What makes or breaks a company in the long run is not just having intelligent and creative staff, but having people who can retain that and organize them in an efficient way. Let’s look at a bad example first.
Sega. Sega of America was run sooo badly. The Genesis was printing money, but they got greedy and confused and overwhelmed the consumer. The Genesis, Genesis model 2, Sega CD, the 32x, the Nomad, the Neptune, and an infinite number of peripherals. Plus they released the Saturn way too early, and when the Dreamcast came out, they did not retain Bernie Stolar (though he made errors as well).
One thing that really stands out in this sea of mismanagement is with one of the original builds of Sonic X-Treme. It was being developed using the Nights engine, but without the knowledge of Yuki Naka. When he found out, he had the project cancelled. Of course, the developer was part of Sega of America.
On the other hand, Sega of Japan seems to have been run very well. During the 90’s they made so many great and experimental games. It was not lack of talent, money or creativity that ruined them. If not for the damage done to them by SOA, they would still be a major force. SOA drained their blood.
Nintendo strikes me as a very well managed company. I know at this point the fanboys are going to chime in about how F-Zero never got a sequel or how they hate Nintendo’s rerelease policies or friend codes, but hear me out.
The fact that they are able to continue to thrive in a market dominated by giants is quite interesting. And the fact that they do this without releasing that many games is also interesting. They are a fascinating mix between being conservative but also creative.
Their delayed policy on rereleases is annoying as a gamer, but it makes perfect business sense. It allows games to develop a cache or nostalgia around them so powerful that they are able to carry a system.
A comparison of Zelda and Assassin’s Creed is interesting. Both are massive games, but UBI has diluted the brand terribly by simply releasing too many games. In 20 years Wind Waker will sell well, but I have serious doubts about Assassin’s Creed rereleases.
Nonetheless, the UBI production line is really amazing. That they are able to produce so much high quality work in a short time is unbelievable. But I think they are victims of their own success as well, because these are massive teams that are too big to fail, which means that innovation is dangerous in the big picture. Innovation is confined to variations on a familiar experience. I am thinking of all the controversy that surrounded Wind Waker when it was announced. I am not sure UBI is confident enough to take a risk like that.
Something that deserves serious thought is how a company can keep from being a victim of their own success. Rockstar seems to be going in this direction. Remember how quickly GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, and the Stories were released. But after GTA V, they seem to have developed a paralysis that is eating their brains. Perhaps it is the challenge of adapting to new technology, like Square had after the PS 1 era.
Talented programmers often go off the deep end when given too much time and resources, and so they need to be reined in. In addition they need to be made to work well as a team, otherwise the most talented team will produce only chaos. But too much control is fatal in the long run. Eidos milked the Tomb Raider franchise to death, and the developers simply got sick of it.
One last thing: I realize that I have said mostly good things about Njntendo, so I just want to list some of their catastrophes for a moment. Betraying Sony for the SNES CD was cosmic stupidity, losing Square a disaster, Wii motion control games haven’t aged that well, the DS doesn’t have many good games, the Virtual Boy, and the new Metroid is taking way too long.
What other companies management deserves recognition?
Sega. Sega of America was run sooo badly. The Genesis was printing money, but they got greedy and confused and overwhelmed the consumer. The Genesis, Genesis model 2, Sega CD, the 32x, the Nomad, the Neptune, and an infinite number of peripherals. Plus they released the Saturn way too early, and when the Dreamcast came out, they did not retain Bernie Stolar (though he made errors as well).
One thing that really stands out in this sea of mismanagement is with one of the original builds of Sonic X-Treme. It was being developed using the Nights engine, but without the knowledge of Yuki Naka. When he found out, he had the project cancelled. Of course, the developer was part of Sega of America.
On the other hand, Sega of Japan seems to have been run very well. During the 90’s they made so many great and experimental games. It was not lack of talent, money or creativity that ruined them. If not for the damage done to them by SOA, they would still be a major force. SOA drained their blood.
Nintendo strikes me as a very well managed company. I know at this point the fanboys are going to chime in about how F-Zero never got a sequel or how they hate Nintendo’s rerelease policies or friend codes, but hear me out.
The fact that they are able to continue to thrive in a market dominated by giants is quite interesting. And the fact that they do this without releasing that many games is also interesting. They are a fascinating mix between being conservative but also creative.
Their delayed policy on rereleases is annoying as a gamer, but it makes perfect business sense. It allows games to develop a cache or nostalgia around them so powerful that they are able to carry a system.
A comparison of Zelda and Assassin’s Creed is interesting. Both are massive games, but UBI has diluted the brand terribly by simply releasing too many games. In 20 years Wind Waker will sell well, but I have serious doubts about Assassin’s Creed rereleases.
Nonetheless, the UBI production line is really amazing. That they are able to produce so much high quality work in a short time is unbelievable. But I think they are victims of their own success as well, because these are massive teams that are too big to fail, which means that innovation is dangerous in the big picture. Innovation is confined to variations on a familiar experience. I am thinking of all the controversy that surrounded Wind Waker when it was announced. I am not sure UBI is confident enough to take a risk like that.
Something that deserves serious thought is how a company can keep from being a victim of their own success. Rockstar seems to be going in this direction. Remember how quickly GTA 3, Vice City, San Andreas, and the Stories were released. But after GTA V, they seem to have developed a paralysis that is eating their brains. Perhaps it is the challenge of adapting to new technology, like Square had after the PS 1 era.
Talented programmers often go off the deep end when given too much time and resources, and so they need to be reined in. In addition they need to be made to work well as a team, otherwise the most talented team will produce only chaos. But too much control is fatal in the long run. Eidos milked the Tomb Raider franchise to death, and the developers simply got sick of it.
One last thing: I realize that I have said mostly good things about Njntendo, so I just want to list some of their catastrophes for a moment. Betraying Sony for the SNES CD was cosmic stupidity, losing Square a disaster, Wii motion control games haven’t aged that well, the DS doesn’t have many good games, the Virtual Boy, and the new Metroid is taking way too long.
What other companies management deserves recognition?
