It drives me nuts, but the gaming community has made it clear many times by now that they view the problems in the industry exclusively through the lens of how it harms them as consumers. That's why abuse of devs is quickly swept under the rug (except in the rare case it effects one of their chosen celebrities, like Kojima) and why game companies like Riot are essentially frat houses that sometimes sell software.
Essentially, they're getting mad at not getting their treats.
The scenario of "chosen celebrities" isn't accidental. It's a difference in approach to business between western companies and asian companies. The asian companies create significantly more visibility for directors of games, making it clear that x game belongs to y director. The only western exception to this is Sid Meier because his name is physically on the game but that's become a brand in and of itself, his actual involvement and control of the product is questionable now.
Kojima's name is on all his titles and he controlled their development. Same for Iwata. Sakurai. Yoshi P. Etc etc. You can see it in all the Japanese developers where a "leader" is made visible compared to western developers where workers must subordinate their contributions to the brand name and oftentimes there is no ultimate "decision maker" but a messy feudal war between leaders of departments with competing goals. Marketing, sales, various branches of the development team, etc, each functioning as its own fief trying to earn the favour of the CEO with no real directorial leadership.
Gamers like directorial leadership for titles. Western companies do not. They want the brand to be responsible for itself and the workers to be completely alienated so that they can be replaced without the audience noticing the change in skill or visionaries of a team.
What could change to allow creative control to go back to directors and not marketing teams? Also, how do we avoid a celebrity game director becoming a David Cage style fucknut?
If the companies were coops none of these issues would exist. They would be focused on making good games. The Japanese companies operate differently because they still have a collective culture and a different workplace culture to the west's individualist hyper-capitalist culture.
If they were all coops the employees would decide on a more balanced priority between profit and good games. They wouldn't prioritise profit where it damages gameplay because the vast majority of employees want to make good games not just money.
It drives me nuts, but the gaming community has made it clear many times by now that they view the problems in the industry exclusively through the lens of how it harms them as consumers. That's why abuse of devs is quickly swept under the rug (except in the rare case it effects one of their chosen celebrities, like Kojima) and why game companies like Riot are essentially frat houses that sometimes sell software.
Essentially, they're getting mad at not getting their treats.
The scenario of "chosen celebrities" isn't accidental. It's a difference in approach to business between western companies and asian companies. The asian companies create significantly more visibility for directors of games, making it clear that x game belongs to y director. The only western exception to this is Sid Meier because his name is physically on the game but that's become a brand in and of itself, his actual involvement and control of the product is questionable now.
Kojima's name is on all his titles and he controlled their development. Same for Iwata. Sakurai. Yoshi P. Etc etc. You can see it in all the Japanese developers where a "leader" is made visible compared to western developers where workers must subordinate their contributions to the brand name and oftentimes there is no ultimate "decision maker" but a messy feudal war between leaders of departments with competing goals. Marketing, sales, various branches of the development team, etc, each functioning as its own fief trying to earn the favour of the CEO with no real directorial leadership.
Gamers like directorial leadership for titles. Western companies do not. They want the brand to be responsible for itself and the workers to be completely alienated so that they can be replaced without the audience noticing the change in skill or visionaries of a team.
What could change to allow creative control to go back to directors and not marketing teams? Also, how do we avoid a celebrity game director becoming a David Cage style fucknut?
If the companies were coops none of these issues would exist. They would be focused on making good games. The Japanese companies operate differently because they still have a collective culture and a different workplace culture to the west's individualist hyper-capitalist culture.
If they were all coops the employees would decide on a more balanced priority between profit and good games. They wouldn't prioritise profit where it damages gameplay because the vast majority of employees want to make good games not just money.