Devs don't need producers - Naughty Dog Related content
-
DigitalFoundry- Uncharted: The V-sync Difference
-
Latest Uncharted: Drake's Fortune screenshots
- Review Uncharted: Drake's Fortune [508]
£17.85
RRP: £19.99
In stock
Buy Online
Order before 5.30pm and receive your order the next working day!
Advertisement
Devs don't need producers - Naughty Dog News
PlayStation 3 PlayStation 2 PSP News by Robert Purchese
Naughty Dog - who most recently brought us the rather lovely Uncharted: Drake's Fortune - has been talking at the Develop conference in Brighton about its rather strange approach to managing game development.
Or rather, British-born game designer Richard Lemarchand has - he's giving the production keynote at the event, despite being a designer rather than a producer. The reason for that is, simply, that Naughty Dog doesn't actually have any producers.
Instead, the company's games are "produced by the people who work on it - designers, team leads, programmers, even our co-presidents," Lemarchand explained. "Anyone who wants to step up and take responsibility for an aspect of the game... Is empowered to just stand up and start organising."
If that sounds somewhat chaotic, well, it is. But it's aided and abetted by some other strange approaches Naughty Dog takes - including the fact that nobody in the company only manages. Right up to the company presidents, "everyone, at all levels, works directly on building the game".
"That helps us stay very focused on quality and fun, since the people with the responsibility are the same creative artisans who are making the game. Nobody signs off on an asset or feature that isn't up to scratch just because a piece of paper says it's time to do so."
Lemarchand describes this structure as a "DoOcracy", a rather horrible word which has emerged from volunteer organisations and charities. "It creates a meritocratic team culture," he says. "Even if you're the most junior guy in the company, if you start working on something and get good results... Your passion and abilities will attract more responsibilities." He went on to explain that formal promotions at the company generally only happen when someone has actually been doing the role for a while anyway.
The team's structure (or lack of same) owes much to other creative industries, rather than to the software development industry many other game firms model themselves upon - and Naughty Dog also uses other creative industry staples, like a lengthy pre-production time which Lemarchand describes as "a process of managed chaos", with few conventional deadlines.
So why should other companies sit up and take notice of Naughty Dog's extremely unusual approach to game development? Well, with a team of just 90 people today, the company has sold 35 million games and turned in about a billion dollars worth of revenue in its history. Add in the fact that Uncharted was really rather good, and you start to see that the guys might just have a point.
Advertisement
Are you excited about Uncharted: Drake's Fortune on PlayStation 3?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games
Thanks!
Related Games
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune
Latest Features
-
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune Review [508]
-
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune First Impressions [84]
-
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune Preview [172]
-
Uncharted: Drake's Fortune Interview [14]
Latest Videos
DigitalFoundry- Uncharted: The V-sync Difference [3] 19 September, 2009
Uncharted - Dev diary [0] 30 November, 2007
Latest News
-
New PS3 firmware update issued [31]
-
Uncharted movie in development [40]
-
Uncharted 2 to use all the PS3's power [131]
-
Uncharted used less than half PS3's power [133]
-
Uncharted Trophy support introduced [33]
Latest Screenshots
16 October, 2007 [13]
Release Date Out now!
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
Comments: 1-31 of 31 in total
Poster
|
0
Interesting. I would agree, their games do generally have a lot of spit and polish and Uncharted was v enjoyable. The associated Uncharted videos do back up what this guy said in terms of the way they run the studio.
If only every office could have a doggie - the workplace would be a better place.... |
|
0
There are good producers and bad producers. I don't think Naughty Dog are trying to say that all producers are rubbish or bad people or anything like that. They're just espousing an alternate way to work.
They're in a bit of a luxury position to do so, it must be said. Part of courting a publisher involves showing them you have the professionalism to pull off a production - that normally requires that you have seasoned producers on board. Not having producers is not a "bad" thing, but it goes against the status quo in mid to large size development studios, and thus is likely to raise eyebrows. Naughty Dog have a great track record, and therefore don't have to worry about that side of things as much - they're a proven developer. It's great that they're therefore trying new approaches with the freedom that gives them. So... good for Naughty Dog if it works for 'em - I'm glad. Just don't expect anyone to follow suit over night - they don't really have the liberty (or arguably, will) to do so. Like I say, there are good producers and bad producers. It's a pleasure to work with the good ones, but they are few and far between.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 31/07/08 @ 12:15
|
|
0
"Someone finally saying that producers are talentless parasites."
Agreed. Now someone should step up and say coders are arrogant narcissists, artists are petulant prima donnas and designers are lazy hacks. I've been in several studios where they thought they didn't need producers and most of them have folded pretty quickly or produced muddled, confused games late and over-budget. ND can get away with it as they're developing technology as well as games and have pretty much unlimited funds and time. |
|
Vertical Stand
31/07/08 @ 11:34
0
Shame no one at Naughty Dog came up with a decent combat system for Uncharted, as opposed to some sub-Syphon Filter pish which spoils the atmosphere the wonderful art design creates...
|
|
Yoghurt_Pot
31/07/08 @ 11:35
0
Agree, Good proucers are few in this industry but they can make the difference to maintaining focus and shielding the dev team from stupid knee jerk "requests" from a talentless publisher who's just played "X" game and must have this new feature added.
|
|
0
"a process of managed chaos"
Hang on I thought they didn't have managers??? As with so many of these keynotes what they say is usually the opposite of what actually goes on. "Nobody signs off on an asset or feature that isn't up to scratch just because a piece of paper says it's time to do so.". This sounds like they're very tightly managed and work is watched very carefully. |
|
0
If it works for them , then good on them. It sounds like they have a really strong crew on board, who are happy to take on personal responsibility for what they do.
I work in another part of the interactive industry, and my current agency produces some great work (IMO), the very best getting done in a similar way to that describe in the article. It might not be that they are tightly managed, rather they are good at managing themselves.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 31/07/08 @ 14:14
|
|
0
"I believe you've missed the point."
I believe you have no clue what you're on about. The work must be watched carefully to know if the quality is acceptable for sign-off rather than simply sticking to a date. And seriously as ND is owned by Sony do you really think they don't have producers in place watching everything? ND may not have their own producers but I can assure you Sony have people on the ground there. |
|
ScrewYouHippy
31/07/08 @ 13:47
0
There are publisher and developer producers - One set are invariably a big bag of toss, and the others are the guys shielding the development team from the frequent "requests"
All very well and good for Naughty Dog, well done for you guys, I just hope you're never stuck with a bad publisher producer who knows nothing one day... A publisher being able to directly communicate to your designers is probably thing that keeps me up at night. Also, it could be argued that your most talented people who manage the day to day, in effect ARE producers, (they just don't have the paycheque) - sure they may be called designers, artists and leads in general, but if they spend most of their time actually monitoring the project - rather than making it, surely they are just producers by another name? Each to their own.... |
|
BlankOBlank!
31/07/08 @ 13:57
0
If you're technically minded you code, if you're artistically minded you draw, if you're a bit of both you design, and if you're neither you produce.
They're generally good negotiators though, which is something the rest of the team are usually awful at. |
|
0
@Salvia
""a process of managed chaos" Hang on I thought they didn't have managers??? As with so many of these keynotes what they say is usually the opposite of what actually goes on. "Nobody signs off on an asset or feature that isn't up to scratch just because a piece of paper says it's time to do so.". This sounds like they're very tightly managed and work is watched very carefully. " It is possible to manage yourself and chaos can be "managed" by everyone. As for the second quote, I think the first half (omitted in your excerpt) puts it in context: "That helps us stay very focused on quality and fun, since the people with the responsibility are the same creative artisans who are making the game. Nobody signs off on an asset or feature that isn't up to scratch just because a piece of paper says it's time to do so." I interpret that as meaning that the people who sign off on these assets or features are the people implementing them and they don't have to sign off on them at a particular point in time just because a process says they should. Sounds to me like they're simply saying people can take the time they need to get it right rather than being forced into releasing something that's "good enough" in order to meet some deadline. |
|
0
"Patronising? You're the one who said I had "no clue what [I'm] on about." "
Fair enough...but you called me "dear" you big nancy! I'm no angrier than when anyone stands up at a keynote and gives sensationalist and provocative speeches. I've heard so many that while technically true are in reality utter horseshite. No doubt there are developers the world over saying "Yeah we don't need no stinking producers!" when they are in fact incapable of runnning the proverbial in the usual. Plus fuckwits issuing sweeping generalisations like "talentless parasites" don't help. I've known producers to give valuable guidance, direction and protection to individuals as well as entire teams. I've also encountered programmers, artists, designers who are so unprofessional and obstructive that it makes you want to spit blood so being a "talentless parasite" is restricted to producers and managers. |
|
0
"they don't have to sign off on them at a particular point in time just because a process says they should."
Yeah but that's US development all over. They typically plan the entire development process out and then panic when the actual development deviates from this plan (as it does in the real world). What they need to do is take the more sensible approach that says the initial plan is a roadmap or guideline that will need to be constantly adjusted as work progresses and the details of what you're doing become clearer. |
|
kangarootoo
31/07/08 @ 14:26
0
"There are good producers and bad producers. I don't think Naughty Dog are trying to say that all producers are rubbish or bad people or anything like that. They're just espousing an alternate way to work."
+1 This kind of thing "producers are talentless parasites" is just the yansome ranting of someone who has had a bad time somewhere along the lines. I've known all kinds of producers, and the majority of them are skilled and valuable. Naughty Dog do just have a different way of working, and it works for them. Also though, it is important to note that semantics have a large part to play here. The key point in the article is "nobody in the company only manages". Of course they have producers, its just that those producers are also doing the job of coding designing and arting the game. Its just like some companies say they have no designers. Of course they have designers, the designers just do other stuff as well. You could have a producer who does nothing but produce, but is great at it. You could also have a designer that also produces, but is bloody awful at it. WEhat it really comes down is whether your team has all the skills required to make the product being made. Naughty Dog clearly have all of the skills, which is the crucial thing. I would also suggest that "Nobody signs off on an asset or feature that isn't up to scratch just because a piece of paper says it's time to do so" is a bit of a strawman. There are loads of companies that have dedicated producers who do not such thing. Painting a worse case scenario is bound to make a point look valid, but the key thing is that it is only valid in SOME situations. I think one thing that everyone can agree on, is that if the word "talentless" can be applied to an individual, it doesn't really matter what job they do. You don't want them onboard (unless their lack of talent lies in playing the trumpet, in which case it can probably be bared). |
|
Yoghurt_Pot
31/07/08 @ 14:28
0
^^ wow common sense^^
EDIT: @Salva maybe even during this road map schedule we could include time for builds, miletsone polish etc (rather than lamping in as many half implemented mechanics as possible to show the production company how far down the line we are which then causes them to recoil and worry cus they are provided with a buggy half complete build). And then wonder why they provide "helpfull" solutions.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 31/07/08 @ 15:30
|
|
0
@Salvia
"They typically plan the entire development process out and then panic when the actual development deviates from this plan (as it does in the real world). What they need to do is take the more sensible approach that says the initial plan is a roadmap or guideline that will need to be constantly adjusted as work progresses and the details of what you're doing become clearer." I agree wholeheartedly, I think the idea that you can plan and schedule a complex software project at the outset and end up with a realistic deadline is a bit naive. There are simply too many variables and unknowns to accurately predict the time it will take. |
|
Vertical Stand
31/07/08 @ 15:54
0
"Good producers are few in this industry but they can make the difference to maintaining focus and shielding the dev team from stupid knee jerk "requests" from a talentless publisher who's just played "X" game and must have this new feature added."
Jak 2? *legs it* |
|
kangarootoo
31/07/08 @ 16:16
0
@sneetch
Whilst I agree that you can't realistically plan a project down to the day due to the variables involved, neither can you afford to not plan anything and just see how it goes. Much as it sounds cool in the press, saying "it will be ready when its done" is usually just another way for a dev to say "I'm not telling you when we plan to finish it". You simply HAVE to manage costs when developing a game, and having SOME idea of how long things will take is just part of the business. If you can't be certain how long something will take, you apply an educated guess, and build in a factor of safety (its the factor of safety that seems missing in game development on an epidemic scale, especially for an indie at the beckon call of a stingy publisher). Some companies consistently turn out quality titles, to budget, and on time, WITHOUT doing shedloads of crunch (I believe that ND routinely have periods of crunch). They must be doing something right. I'm not for a second saying that ND aren't doing things the right way, I think all can be reasonably gleaned from this is that there are several ways to skin a cat.
Edited 1 times,
most recently on 31/07/08 @ 17:17
|
|
0
@kangarootoo
I agree and I'm not saying don't try, very few companies can afford to adopt a "it'll be done when it's done policy", I'm just saying that it's unlikely that you'll get it right. You can get in the ball park, but the larger the project, the more difficult it is to get it right. Schedules have to be padded (by a magical amount), otherwise you're bound to miss deadlines. I've worked in a company where, just in the door, my new manager described a problem to me, asked me for a rough estimate of how long it would take. I said that I couldn't really tell them, I didn't understand the domain yet, I didn't know the existing code and so on he asked for a guess off the top of my head, I (getting paranoid) gave him my best guess, stressed that it was just a guess and next week I saw that guess in the schedule. I refuse to guess any more. |
|
kangarootoo
01/08/08 @ 12:42
0
@sneetch
I thinik for the most part we agree. "Schedules have to be padded (by a magical amount), otherwise you're bound to miss deadlines." That is the factor of safety I am on about. The truth is that it is all very well and good saying "these things can't be predicted", but if that were absolutely true to the nth degree the games industry wouldn't exist. If you have bills and wages to pay, you have to know how long it will take to do something and as a result know how much it will cost. Try turning around to a landlord or bank and saying "well, making games is not an exact science". A landlord would probably say "right, I'll evict you and find someone with a more predictable business model". The manager you mention sounds like they just wanted to fill in a space on a spreadsheet, which is honestly not a bad thing if that is the best thing that can be doine at the time. That is ok for planning if they had written "estimated time" on it AND build a factor of safety into the project. They were trusting your best guess, and you were right to say "my best guess is a total f*cking guess". Maybe he was testing you, who knows. If the majority of the project was built that way I would be worried, but I suspect it wasn't. Personally, if I have no idea how long something will take, I take my very best guess and multiply it by three :) |
Comments: 1-31 of 31 in total
Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!
