Game Industry Legends: Warren SpectorWelcome to Game Industry Legends, where IndustryGamers talks with some of the top people in the game industry about their experiences and where they see the industry headed. These are people who've been in the game business for decades and have created some of the most amazing games and game companies. The work of these legends has changed the game industry, and we want them to share their thoughts about the game industry.
This time we've talked with Warren Spector, who's well-known in gaming for creating influential titles like System Shock, Deus Ex, Ultima Underworld, Thief: The Dark Project and most recently Epic Mickey, an amazing reintroduction of the world's most recognizable cartoon character.
Warren began his gaming career with Steve Jackson Games, where he created the beloved paper-and-pencil RPG Toon in 1984, moving to TSR (creators of Dungeons & Dragons) where he worked on a number of roleplaying games including Top Secret/S.I. and several D&D projects. He joined the computer game business in the late 1980s at Origin Systems (later purchased by Electronic Arts), working on Ultima and Wing Commander titles. He later worked with Looking Glass Studios creating Thief: The Dark Project, then left to found Ion Storm's Austin offices where he developed Deus Ex and Deus Ex: Invisible War. In 2004 he left and formed Junction Point Studios, which was later acquired by Disney Interactive. This led to Warren being asked to create the first new major media title in years centered on Mickey Mouse, which resulted in Epic Mickey. He's now hard at work on his next project, but took some time out from his busy schedule to talk to IndustryGamers.
IndustryGamers: What year was your first electronic game project? How big was your first game development team? How big was the budget?
Warren Spector: I made the leap from tabletop games into electronic games in 1989. I worked on a few things simultaneously – Ultima VI, with Richard Garriott, and Space Rogue, with Paul Neurath. (That was an education, let me tell you!) The first game I pretty much ran on my own was Bad Blood, with Chris Roberts as sort of an Executive Producer and Jeff George as Creative Director. Teams back then were about 10-12 people. Budgets? Tiny! I remember getting my head handed to me on Martian Dreams, another early game I worked on, for going over my $225,000 budget – I spent $273,000. That number is burned in my brain! Nowadays, folks working in the triple-A game space spend that in a week, sometimes less!
IG: How does that compare to budgets and team sizes nowadays?
WS: There is no comparison. All told, we had nearly 300 people working on Disney Epic Mickey at its peak. Without getting specific, game budgets can easily top $30 million, with plenty of games costing more. That’s a huge change – the skills you develop working on small teams with low budgets, the management and direction techniques you use, are hardly relevant. I often feel like I’m not even in the same business I got into back in the ‘80s. Of course, I’m only talking about the traditional, triple-A space here. One of the coolest things about the game business right now is that the range of game styles, of distribution methods and development options is MUCH broader now than it used to be. You can be one person in a garage and do something innovative that finds an audience.
IG: How have these changes affected game design? Are the changes positive, or negative, or something of both?
WS: Bigger budgets and longer timelines mean the people and companies doing the funding have more and more control over what gets produced, as well as how it gets produced. And it’s just inevitable that with greater risk comes greater caution. There’s still some innovation, but without “comps” (competitive titles) and a clearly defined, already existing audience, getting a game greenlit is definitely harder than it was back in the day. Again, though, there’s a thriving indie scene where people can try new things and the mobile business seems a bit more like a “frontier” and less like civilization – there’s room to play around there, still. As far as whether the changes are positive or negative, I don’t know – probably both. Speaking personally, I’m not much interested in making or playing well-executed versions of well understood games. But there are plenty of people willing to buy and play whatever new, more refined shooter that comes along.
IG: What are the biggest changes in the industry you've seen?
WS: Nothing’s bigger than the budget and team size changes I’ve already talked about. I often find myself longing for the days of 10-12 person teams, where communication and vision-propagation were just insanely hard and not nearly impossible! After that, the biggest change is our continuing march toward mainstream acceptance. When I was getting started, games weren’t generally accepted as entertainment for “normal” people. They were fine for geeks and nerds and outsiders (like me!...) but that was it. In a way, that gave us more latitude when it came to genres and all, since no one was paying much attention. Nowadays, when it’s tough to find people who don’t engage in gaming of some sort on a regular basis, everyone’s paying attention. It’s kind of cool but also kind of sad, in a way.
IG: Do you think consoles as we know them are doomed? Will there be a successful new console generation in the next few years, or is the industry about to undergo a fundamental change?
WS: Predictions are a fool’s game! I don’t have any great insight into the future of consoles. It seems clear there’s already fundamental change going on, what with the rise of mobile gaming and social gaming. Looking at the growth trend, those areas are increasing in importance at a pretty incredible rate, while consoles are growing more slowly, if at all. But looking at revenue generation, it’s hard to see consoles going away any time in the near future. There are clearly several more good years ahead.
IG: How do you think social and mobile games are changing the industry?
WS: Social and mobile are changing games in all sorts of ways, some good, some bad. On the plus side, these two game platforms or styles are growing the audience for gaming. There are so many more people interested in interactive entertainment now than there were before social and mobile came along. Playing games has become so commonplace the word “gamer” seems almost anachronistic, if not unnecessary. On the downside, social and mobile have changed expectations of game costs – both for developers making games and consumers playing them. When you can only charge so much for a game before you lose sales to competitors and you can only spend so much making games. Selfishly, I look at social and mobile games and think, “Didn’t I just spend 20+ years of my life trying to get away from graphics and gameplay models like this?” It seems inevitable that social and mobile will be a big part of our gaming future, that’s for sure.
"Didn’t I just spend 20+ years of my life trying to get away from graphics and gameplay models like this?" - Warren Spector
IG: Are games getting smarter, more ambitious artistically, or are the pressures of massive budgets forcing less risk-taking?
WS: I don’t think there’s one, simple answer to this question, for the simple reason that there isn’t a single, monolithic thing called “games” anymore. Frankly, I doubt there ever was such a thing. If you’re talking about triple-A, boxed console games sold at retail, I think you’re seeing somewhat less ambition than in the past, just because the stakes are so high. Even there, though, plenty of developers are taking risks and doing cool stuff. I think the mobile and social spaces need to be more aggressive, creatively – trusting creatives a bit more and metrics a bit less would be a start. On the indie scene, the digital download, PC scene or the XBLA scene, things are pretty exciting. There’s plenty going on that’s artistically ambitious and risky, if you take the time to look.
IG: Have the game industry's changes over the past 25 years surprised you or disappointed you? In what ways?
WS: I’m constantly amazed at our influence and cultural credibility. Games are everywhere these days. We’ve become cultural touchstones as compelling as any movie, television show, band or book. If you’d told me twenty years ago that we’d be as influential and ubiquitous as we are, I’d have said you were nuts. That’s pretty cool! As far as disappointments go, I guess I’d have to say that I really am sad that single-player story-based games have reached a level of sophistication that doesn’t embarrass me JUST in time to have MMOs, social and mobile change the game, as it were. Just as we’ve figured some stuff out, it’s become increasingly difficult to make the kinds of games I want to make. That’s a little frustrating. But you can’t argue with the realities of the marketplace, and there are plenty of cool challenges ahead.
IG: Are games getting any better at engaging players emotionally? Will we ever see games that have the emotional impact of a good film?
WS: I think it’s time to put this question to bed and never ask it again. It’s clear that games can have huge emotional impact. You should see some of the fan mail we’ve gotten on Disney Epic Mickey – it’s heartfelt and emotional in a way and at a level I’ve never experienced in my professional life (and there’s a lot of it, which is nice!). And I can point to… we ALL can point to… game experiences that affected us in ways that go far beyond the simple adrenaline rush or intellectual challenge games typically elicit.
IG: What's your prediction for the next 10 or 20 years for the game industry? Artistically, technically, and financially? Is gaming really going to become as ubiquitous a medium as television?
WS: Man, I hate making predictions! I guess I’d argue that, in our own way, we’re already as ubiquitous as television. But making that case requires thinking a little bit of pretzel logic involving revenue generated and hours spent playing and so on. The implicit question – the one you’re really asking - is, I think, whether games will supplant television as the central entertainment medium of the 21st century in the way that television supplanted radio and movies in the last century. There, I think, the answer is no. The internet, speaking generally, may replace television, but I don’t believe interactive entertainment will ever take the place of linear media. The fact is that games are work. You have to, you know, interact, to make things happen. And as fun and appealing as that is, most people don’t want to work for their entertainment – they want someone ELSE to do the work. It seems inevitable that some interactive elements will spill over into linear media, and it seems likely that delivery systems for linear content will change, but games as games are a different animal, complements to linear media, not replacements for them.
IG: What can you tell us about your next project? How do you feel about it right now?
WS: I can tell you I’m really excited about future projects from Junction Point. There’ll certainly be some surprises. Beyond that, you’re getting’ nothin’ outta me!
IG: Well, you can't blame me for trying!
