Develop 2010: Tim Schafer Keynote

If you want a good way to kick off a speech it seems talking about vomit is key. That’s how Tim Schafer started off day three of Develop 2010, giving the day’s keynote speech, and it got a tired and hung over crowd laughing straight away. He regaled those of us in attendance with a story from last night of a man he’d seen in the hallway who’d vomited in the hallway before immediately entering his room. With the ice well and truly broken he moved onto an hour of stories from personal experience that gave us an insight into the issues of running your own development studio.

He started off by noting that his studio, Double Fine, will have been open for a decade on the 26th of July. In that time they’ve only managed to put out just two titles and also achieved a 100% success rate in having a game canceled by the original publisher. The talk would return to Schafer’s issues with publishers several times, as well as how Double Fine has evolved in recent years.

According to Schafer the main thing that’s changed in recent years is money. There’s a lot more money at stake these days; the industry has grown and with it things have had to change. He commented on how much harder it is to retain your IP these days, in fact the difficulty of keeping hold of a game’s IP is exactly proportional to the amount of money being asked for from an investor. Moving on he also talked about how much as a developer publisher’s no longer want to take any risks with a game, it can’t offend any potential market or even be too hard. According to Schafer the downturn in puzzles in games comes from usability testers complaining that the puzzle is too hard or takes too long to solve.

On Double Fine itself, it seems a lot has changed since Brutal Legend. Since its inception the studio has only had one team, working on Psychonauts and then Brutal Legend. However, after the cancellation of Brutal Legend’s sequel, something that came as a shock to Schafer as he’d been informed that the follow up to the Heavy Metal inspired title was a done deal, it seems that they’ve moved onto four smaller titles. Whilst he wouldn’t announce any of them just yet, he did say that there’d be a mix of retail and downloadable titles.

Giving some insight into Double Fine’s creative process, Schafer explained how all four games had come out of two fortnight-long sessions where the team had been split into four teams and told to make a game. Apparently all eight titles that came out of these sessions had been considered for release. However, four made the cut, and after being shopped to every publisher all four were signed.

Of course, splitting your core team comes with its own issues, and Schafer did note that whilst there had been some “growing pains” it was a positive experience overall. Splitting the team also meant that there was more room for individuals in the staff to grow and take up lead roles, something that’s impossible in a one team studio unless “you kill the guy above you”. It also means that each of the games has its own distinctive feel, with Schafer not being directly involved with every single aspect of the game.

Shafer really did wax lyrical on the benefits of making smaller games, something that seems to be a common theme at this year’s Develop conference. He said that he liked the shorter development cycles, reminding him of his time working on Monkey Island. Apparently the games only took 9 months to make for “what we called about 40 hours of entertainment.” He also said that shorter cycles mean that you have less chance of getting canceled as “by the time they’ve cancelled you you’re already on shelves”. With Double Fine’s perfect cancellation rate the issue is one that clearly plays on Schafer’s mind.

Finally, on the situation at Double Fine, Schafer commented that multiple teams gives the studio more financial security. With each of Double Fine’s games having different publishers, not only do they still have funding if any of the games get cancelled, it also puts them in a stronger negotiating position as they don’t need to take the first deal offered to them. This makes it easier to retain things such as IP rights, and keep more creative control over the title.

With the main talk over, Schafer moved on to taking a few questions from the audience, including the amusing quotes about his comments on Bobby Kotick, before he wrapped up and the audience shuffled out looking for coffee. We’ll have more from Develop later with the details of Peter Molneux’s Fable III presentation. In the meantime I’m off to get some free beer and more developer insight.

6 Comments

  1. It’s really interesting to hear how the smaller end product makes for a more secure development process. It seems that the only studios doing well in the market are those making downloadable games or those who are heavily publisher-supported (and presumably dictated to on many counts).
    Great stuff!

    • A lot of ‘big’ titles do seem to be selling poorly. Alan Wake and Blur spring to mind. I think gamers a being very picky these days and save their cash for ‘must haves’ such as Heavy Rain and rent the minor titles.

      • I’ve not played Alan Wake, but Blur is a cracking racer. Sure it’s not the best, but it does what it needs too, and I’ve seen it kicking around for £20.00 still in it’s cellophane wrapper.
        But I agree, people are saving their money and buying the 10/10 AAA titles. My local Blockbuster is looking severly depleted… I assume because people are also only buying the best second hand games too.

    • There was at least 5 speakers from different devs who talked about smaller games and the risks of AAA. Was interesting

      • And to make a successful game, all you need to do is make it decent and flog it on PSN for a reasonable price. Who needs publishers eh!

  2. Cheers, Kris. Top insight into Develop and, for me, it’s good getting to vicariously know someone like Schafer a bit better.

Comments are now closed for this post.