The games industry already has too much middle management with far too much self-importance.

And if you can get a piece of shareware to make a thousand, let alone fifty, please let me know how.

Sorry to be on such a downer but that's the way I see it...

I'm well aware that in EVERYTHING there is too much middle management. I also have hard won skills, in other arenas that I work in.

What I know is this: skills don't pay the bills.

The person who makes money is the person that makes something happen. The main distinction between great games on the market and making money and just another dead idea is NOT the programmers. It's the management of the team. It's how that idea is molded, quality controlled, how the team is focused and organized, how the product is marketed.

Again, I work in the computer industry in another facet, and have worked as everything from bottom of the barrel stooge to top guy so I'm not ragging on developers.

Without a good developer the project won't work either.

But my experience has shown me skills are far less important than the ability to think, manage, mold, work, promote - in other words what I bring to the mix is not only a vague idea, but the concept, the structure, the organization, and the ability to turn that idea into profits.

That's what middle management is SUPPOSED to be about. What I'm sayin is this - you can get 20% of this or not. I think the opportunity to hold a 20% share of a potentially winning product is darn good.

I'm not trying to shoot anyone down here, just that I think that there is an underappreciation of what my role in this project would be. As a worker in many stupid organizations I have a healthy hatred for "suits". I also have noticed that there are loads of talented programmers working at McDonalds because they don't posses the ability they need to turn those skills into $$$.

Bill Gates isn't anything special as a programmer. He was just a genius at bullying his company to the top. I'm not Bill Gates, and this product isn't windows, but my point is NEVER understimate the importance of what vision and management mean to success.

20% is a TON of a winning product, and 90% isn't worth a postage stamp in a loosing product, and I submit that the *right* manager is what makes the difference between the two.

It reminds me of the NFL. Sure there is the ocassional super star that makes the difference, but I defy you to show me ONE winning franchise with poor management and ONE loosing franchise with great management.

I welcome more comments on the issue.

quote:
I'm not Bill Gates, and this product isn't windows,

you can be the second BG......just make a blue screen, which appears after 'pretending' to do some nifty things. You could even get a 100% profit, cuz it doesn't matter whether it's a good product or not.

Sorry for my sarcasm, but I think what you 'want' to do is higly exagerated. I won't be the only one who thinks this. You say that you need a good manager. But who says you are one? Do you have a degree? and so on.

------------------
Dance with me......

"What I know is this: skills don't pay the bills."

...no.

I could not disagree more.
Organisation might make skilled people more effective in what they do by giving direction but the skill of man-management is just that, a _skill_.
So if you have an organisational ability then great, leading a team is an important part of being in the team and if the idea for the game is yours then you also have the rights of a game designer.
But the people that make it happen are the developers, whether they be coders, artists, designers or testers.
The people that make the people make it happen are the middle management.
And more often than not it is not their incredible skill that produces a brilliant game and it's often their fault when production slips by months (mostly due to lack of appreciation of the product they're trying to develop and the resources available).
But of everyone I've ever met you can guess who the lightest workers are and who are the guys who stick to the office until the next morning to get the job done.
You might be one of the latter, I _know_ I am.

No I don't want or expect this to be a flame war or anything, just stating an opinion.

As for my qualifications - who knows? We of all people know that University degrees don't measure ability.

I know what I can and can't do as a manager. I don't think I'm great, but I'm smart, hard working, and driven. But the proof is in the pudding. I'm offering the 20% and if someone takes me up they are betting that I can make it happen.

If I had to relate one lesson I've learned in life, in EVERY profession or endeavor it's this:

The difference between success and failure isn't between who CAN and CAN'T but who DOES and DOESN'T.

And that's what I meant when I say the skills don't pay the bills. Sure good management is a skill, but what I'm getting at is LATENT skill means nothing. The smartest guy I know is currently working at Subway and pushing 30 years old. Hasn't done diddly squat with his talent. Another guy I know who is pretty average in the smarts deparment is making mega money precisely because he DOES something with what he has.

We all dream and think and wonder. I'm not the most successful guy around (if I was I wouldn't be building a shareware product and talking about it here ) but what I have learned is that there can be 50 guys next to me that are more skilled, smarter, more able, but they don't DO anything. The are content to follow, not to lead. And time and time again the success I've had are NOT due to my talents (or skills) so much as the guts to go and DO something.

Turn ideas into real things!

And that's what I meant when I say the skills don't pay the bills. Skills without implimentation are worthless, and what I see is that the world is FAR shorter on people who ACTUALLY DO turn ideas into realities than on people who POTENTIAL COULD do it.

Much rarer than a great programmer is a person able to make an idea real.

And that, I believe, is the role of GOOD management.

As I stated, I've been on both ends. A manager, and a developer (in another field).

And I see two things - YES many, probably MOST managers are head up their but idiots who are a liability rather than a blessing. (maybe I'll end up being one of them...)

However, staying up nights working when management is off is not proof of the programmer or whoever being more important.

Good managements role is ONE thing - make the machine go. And you know what, the absolute BEST managers are the ones who can set up a great team, oil the machine, make decisions efficiently. They SHOULD have their feet on the desk at 4:00pm and be on the golf course at 6.

Can you think of anything more annoying than the "hands on manager". I hatem.

What I ask of MY manangers is set me up to succeed and then get the /&%$/& out of my way.

And that's what a good manager does.

He molds the work of others towards a goal and makes sure it happens. If he can do it effeciently and go home early, more power to him.

I ask ONE thing of him - make me successful and make me money by putting me in a situation where I can let my skills work and get paid for it.

Just to be clear on this, I'm NOT saying I personally am a great manager. I aim to be. I aim to make that 20% share turn into a bunch o money. Will it happen? Can I do it?

Who knows....

Again, to use the NFL analogy, one of the main reasons some teams fail every single year is their inability to draft talent and make it work together.

I'm not underestimating the role of talent, and I would TOTALLY agree that you can't make a great anything without GREAT programmers. But who recruits them? Who gets them working together, etc.

Also, again, I'm not saying that I am a great manager. I hope I am, but it'd be pretty arrogant to assume it's so!

Vaporware and hype is all about tricking the market, intimidating the competition, and getting venture funding. I don't have a need or reason for any of that. I gain nothing by "hyping" something. I'm not looking for capital. Of course there is not a product because that's what I'm recruiting to do! But either we will build a product or we won't. If we don't the looser is me. I've got no incentive to hype.

Of course it's a crap shoot! That's the whole idea of % of profits. It's both totally risky and totally motivating. It's putting your but on the line and saying you'll get paid not on a salary, but on the basis of your ability to produce a salable product.

And OF COURSE the people who sign on have to be convinced the product can work. If not they won't put into it. The potential developers have already gotten a Non-disclosure agreement. Then they hear the details, and if they sign on great, if not we look for someone else.

But what I want is a small group of people who DO BELIEVE in the product enough to say, "hell yes, I'll put myself on the line and take the crap shoot, and give my best effort".

I figure that if the people who work for you aren't convinced enough in the product or motivated enough to work on a percentage of future profits, then they probably aren't right for you. I want people who believe in it and are on a mission to make it happen.

Oh, and I DON'T expect this to be a full timer. It's more a side project that either will or won't work out for the team.

OK, I know shareware doesn't normally make money, but I'm not talking about your everyday game product that is a large download, etc. I'm not saying that because it will be wonderful or whatever, just because of it's size, style, type, etc. if fits nicely into the shareware model. Say, for the sake of argument, that it's like After Dark Games - that type of product is very commonly downloaded. And it has "hooks" to help increase registration rates.

Some similar products get 100-500 thousand downloads. Let's say 250 thousand. At a registration rate of 5% that's 12,500 people registered. At say $12 a pop that's $150,000. Cut that by a factor of TEN just to be a pain about it and you get $15,000 which is my bottom cutoff line for being happy.

That's what I'm hoping for.

Comments?

Realize that direct mailing RESPONSE rates (not purchase rates) are generally less than .5% of the total. Add to that your target audience (for all games mostly) is going to be people / kids without the ready means to pay for your game, and you realize that if you get .05% registration rate you'll be lucky.

So, even assuming you have a killer game, you must understand that the whole shareware concept is no where near as efficient (for the publisher - you) as the commercial software industry.

Overall, I think that founding a company / team around an individual that can contribute quite little to the actual development of the game (which, for a game of any quality, is SO tremendous for a team of inexperienced people that I'd be surprised to see a result in the next 2 years) is pretty stupid. You simply finding these individuals and pitching them on the concept is not a job. Your statement that 20% of a lot (successful game) is a lot and 90% of nothing (losing game) is nothing, but the difference is NOT the fucking manager. Let me tell you this: without ANY product, a manager is just a "suit". What can you possibly contribute to the 1,000's of man-hours it will take to complete your project? If you had a large amount of money to contribute to its production (like a VC) then things would be different, but you are like firecracker - you started this company and got the individuals together, but what is to stop them from running off and actually developing the game without you? What kind of service are you now to them now that the project (maybe) is getting rolling?

Ok, so I went against my previous statement and better judgement and contributed to this thread. But seriously, you are a motivated individual with nothing to do! If you were a programmer with kind of devotion (and presumablely, talent) I would say "Forward!" because then you'd have a fighting chance.

Anyway, enough of me. I wish you (and hopeful the poor twits you recruit) good luck, because I predict you will need mountain loads of it.

- Splat

I think, radical as it may be, that the 15 year olds saying "yo dude lets make a killer engine" have a better chance than you, because a) they are doing it out of curiousity and not a driving manager or sights of money in the future, b) they have some talent (hopefully) at programming in which to complete the engine, c) they are friends, so they don't really have to worry about dealing with strangers, d) they are close, so distance is not an issue. Aside from the fact that they will probably flake out once they realize the complexity of the project (as should you), they have a lot of things going for them. You, on the other hand, have an excellent manager

- Splat

[This message has been edited by Splat (edited November 30, 1999).]