Anyone reading Jason Schriers' Press Reset?

Started reading this book, and just finished with the Warren Spector chapter of his time with Disney developing Epic Mickey. You can really tell why Schrier as become the game journalist golden child: he's a fantastic writer, and he's really good at finding a effective ways of hooking readers to his story. I was entralled, and pissed at how Warren Spector was treated--though it is important to point out, and maybe the weakness of Schrier's journalism is that he's very much focus on the creators, and he's very unapologetic of taking a "fuck corporations" stance with his journalism which leads to a biased interpretation. However I'm not particularly interested in hearing Suits cry about how "they're not really the baddies, so...--at his time. Essentially, a bunch of Disney execs, most of which had no idea about video games or the culture, essentially hobbled the creative ventures of Spector's company, believing that mobile games were the future and that consoles were on their way out, providing context for Disney's sudden shuttering of several video game companies during the 2010s.

Reading the chapter, it reminded me of a youtube video a friend showed me a while ago:

Essentially the premise is is that it's really hard to start meaningful conversations about video games because how video games are made aren't known to the public. Granted, I think there's a ton of information now than 10 years ago about the combatative nature between developers and publishers. How bad leadership can lead to compromised games, and how decisions from powerful business owners ensures that corporate hierarchies persist making it incredibly difficult for people who wish to work outside of the conservative AAA gaming model to have an active role in development. Unfortunately, I think the audience that might read GiantBomb, Kotaku, Polygon, or any other content that tries to look at games from a cultural perspective are a minority. Gamergate might not be an active platform, but all one needs to do is go type feminist on youtube to find hundreds of Youtube videos whining about "SJWS," some of them sporting viewer numbers in the millions to see its presence still with us. At its core, Gamergate was an emotional response to what people felt was a "gaming elite" coming to take their games away. Sub out Gamergate with MAGA and "gaming elite" with immigrants, and you pretty much have the same thing simply spread out on a global scale. I've even noticed that same animosity towards Schrier himself, with some using the same "ethics in journalism" nonsense to describe why Schrier is a bad journalist because he *checks notes* says mean things about the games I like.

Honestly, I think the reason why there's often this backlash towards stuff like this is because people would prefer to stick their heads in the sand. They want to be able to mindlessly consume without having to worry about their own complicity in an industry that preys on talent. Don't get me wrong, if you're not interested in all of this stuff and would rather just game, you're well within your rights to do so. Sometimes I just want to mentally shut down and play my video games too. But I've seen this recurring thread of politicizing ignorance. Being ignorant and standing by the status quo is not just a personal opinion, it is a political movement intended to stave off "fascism and censorship"...by calling for censorship of specific voices I don't agree with. It makes no sense, but it's not intended to because it's entirely emotional.

Really, this all ties back to a greater theme of education, and the lack there of. I don't necessarily mean learning a bunch facts, but education in regards to critical thinking and emotional intelligence. There's a problem when people stan for content creators, while seemingly not understanding that those creators are playing a part for views, money, and access. Or the people who just believe whatever the hype train tells them to, without even bothering what any of that means. Skepticism is important (not contrarianism cause fuck that noise) because it allows us to remember one thing: that they are the producers and we are the consumers. Keeping things simple like that makes it easier to demand better products without allowing emotions to get in the way. Obviously, I'm not saying you shouldn't like industry names or creatives, but just understand that they are there for a reason--to make money.

Didn't think I'd rammble on this much, but yeah--books is good. You should read it. I'll continue to read it.

Eat the rich.

I love insider anecdotes but as you mentioned, there is a very specific way Schreier sets these stories up that seem like you’re getting a very focused one sided look which I’m not a fan of. From listening to him talk about the book on his podcast recently it was promising that he actively didn’t want it to simply be a tear down of how dysfunctional the industry is, but also possibly offer some solutions for how it can improve. I’m curious if that sentiment comes through from what you’ve read so far, or is it just a long dose of “look how fucked everything is.”

@humanity: I'm only through the first chapter,so I don't know if this leads up to any solutions to how to fix this. I think it's "fine" that Schrier has clear intentions for this book. HIs first book was more about the creative aspect of game making, whereas this book is very much about how the business angle of the game industry tending to fuck with the creative angle.

Thanks for reminding me this came out!

Just got through the first chapter myself. I was always bummed out by how Epic Mickey and Epic Mickey 2 turned out, given Spector's pedigree and Deus Ex being one of my favorite games of all time. This... explains a lot of why, ha.

I'm not a huge fan of his, mostly because his work tends to be simply transcribing disgruntled employee opinions who work or worked at large corporations.

Every company has dissatisfied employees. Sometimes they have a legitimate complaint, sometimes they don't. But Schrier tends to use their statements as a broad indictment against the entire company, and sometimes the entire industry. From what I have read, there is no other side of the coin. I don't mean getting an opposing statement run though the corporations legal team. I mean there's never an interview with another employee who enjoys working there, or had a different experience for his "sources".

He's creating a narrative that at times seems agenda driven.

"Essentially, a bunch of Disney execs, most of which had no idea about video games or the culture, essentially hobbled the creative ventures of Spector's company, believing that mobile games were the future and that consoles were on their way out,"

This is exactly my point. By looking at sales data of console games vs the last ten years of mobile, those execs were right. They weren't a little right, they were absolutely right. Sure Warren is pissed about it, but I don't find the thread of "Creative Person and Their Benefactor Can't Agree" compelling, because that story has been told since the painting of the Cistine Chapel, and even when you hear two sides of that story it's not enlightening.

@nillock: Then you probably shouldn't buy his books and just ignore him?

His book is on my wishlist to buy at some point. His first book intensely confirmed what we hear a lot of: games are hard to make and it's amazing any of them ever come out.

He’s good at reporting but he comes off as such a scumbag these days.

@nillock: This is something that has bothered me about his writing before, and I find myself agreeing with several of your points. The other side of the story feels neglected at times. This isn't to say that there aren't ever reasons for this one sided style (for example, if he has reached out for comment and received no response). Unfortunately it often feels to me as though little attempt was made to even seek out comment or provide context for the other side's thinking.

I suppose that the point that I'm poorly making is that it at times seems like he is writing not to inform, but to hammer down an unshakable opinion that he has about a particular subject.

@nillock:

Every company has dissatisfied employees

The very first chapter has Warren Spector. Not a "dissatisfied employee" But Warren, Deus Ex, Spector. It's weird I keep seeing this complaint that ignores that Schrier has gotten some absolute gets for his interviews and is among the many reasons why he's a known name. And even if it's just some disgruntle employees, that doesn't dismiss the overall problems of crunch and bad management, especially since we keep seeing the end results of this: Cancellations, lay offs, shoddy products, CEOs granted near absolute power at the expense of their employees. It keeps happening so it's ridiculous to pass it off as "upset employees." You have to be actively ignorant to believe that.

He's creating a narrative that at times seems agenda driven.

And somehow an employee singing the praises of the industry isn't? When you're researching for a paper or a book, it's important to try to approach data from as nonbias as possibly and see where the info takes you. But ultimately, you are crafting a specific narrative through a specific lens, and Schrier is pretty unapologetic about what that lens is: capitalism, and the negative effects of profit against creativity. It is then up to "You" to take this information and compare and contrast with other info to see where it fits. You gotta do the work. If someone wants to counter Schrier's book, then that means doing the research and doing the work. Not just whining about it that Schrier is "too mean"

By looking at sales data of console games vs the last ten years of mobile, those execs were right. They weren't a little right, they were absolutely right.

No, no they weren't. Again their ultimate prognosis was that console gaming was "dying" and this is why they completely shat the bed on Epic Mickey 2. That didn't happen. They were half right that mobile gaming was going to be a big thing, they were absolutely wrong about Consoles dying. I mean, we really going to ignore the sales of the Ps4, or the Switch? Even before the pandemic, console gaming was going strong and more than likely will still go strong. They were wrong. And they were wrong on many fronts because of their lack of understanding of the gaming industry.

@kemuri07: To be fair though, even places like Giant Bomb was talking about the potential downfall of the console market. Even asking if there was even going to be many more generations of consoles. And I doubt we would say Giant Bomb lacks understanding of the gaming industry. Business have to make risk/reward calculations and sometimes they probably act to us like they missed the boat but what we parhaps didn't see was that their calculations made it apparent that the potential reward wasn't big enough to subject themselves to the potential risk.

@kemuri07: Warren Spector, great as he is, was in fact a disgruntled employee in the Epic Mickey situation.

The execs were right. Mobile was the next big thing on the horizon, and Epic Mickey sucked as a concept and a game. Not sure how history has proven otherwise.

Yeah...but no. While people were discussing the likelihood of whether or not we would see any more consoles, that was due to a number of factors; no one was seriously thinking that mobile gaming was going to obliterate gaming. Let's go back to the 2010s: The Wii was extremely successful, the ps3 was also really successful. What a lot of people were talking about is whether or not we'd be seeing the same five year cycle for generations, or even whether each company would still have their own box. These were conversations that you could only have if you had an understanding of where the industry was going...something Disney execs did not have. The problem with looking at only numbers is that you're only looking at "half the story" it's a short sighted way of looking at things because it can't determine exactly what trends will be. Like could numbers predict Fortnite, a game that was delayed for years and initially meant to be a PvE experience, would turn into a world wide phenomenon? Probably not.

If it looks like they missed the boat, it's because they missed the boat. If you're chasing trends then you'll never get ahead of it and always potentially be left behind when the next new things come out. Add that Disney didn't really have any one who knew anything about gaming, and Epic Mickey 2 had no chance. And it makes it far worse that a game, which was multiplatform, sold less than the first game which was an exclusive to a single console. Nothing about that was smart.

The execs were right. Mobile was the next big thing on the horizon, and Epic Mickey sucked as a concept and a game. Not sure how history has proven otherwise.

Oh so now it's Epic Mickey was always bad. Well if you're just gonna move the goal posts *shrug*

Here's my thing: Why are people defending corporations again? Like do you guys really believe the fantasy that video game titans are selling, that it's that hard to believe that, holy shit, maybe none of these guys have no idea what they're doing?

@kemuri07: It is possible to both think that corporations are usually bad and to think that Warren Spector's story is likely self-serving and that Epic Mickey had fundamental issues that went beyond corporate meddling and a broader interview base of people on the team could have told a more complete and nuanced version of the story.

That being said, people who are arguing "The Disney execs were right. Console gaming died and now we only have mobile" are making a fundamentally weird argument. Sure, mobile took off like a rocket and it would have made sense for Disney to put money and focus into that, but this is Disney we're talking about, it's a huge and extremely diversified company. It can run a streaming service AND themeparks. The idea that it couldn't make money in both the console and mobile markets makes no sense. Before the pandemic it made money in TV and movies, which are two similar media.

And the idea that "Yeah, after 2010 it was impossible to make any money in the traditional console market" is just fundamentally extremely strange.

But you can think that the execs were totally wrong AND Epic Mickey's problems ran a lot deeper than that and it would have been hard for Epic Mickey 2 to be a good and successful game even with better management, something that Spector obviously won't say.

@nillock Mobile is absolutely huge, but it in no way ended console gaming, lol.

Remember when the Angry Birds dev proclaimed the end of console gaming? Getting major that vibes from parts of this thread.

If you don't like Schreier, fine. Personally, as much as I love a lot of the reporting he's done, I get a little squeamish how he's sometimes valorized over the devs he's supposedly shining a spotlight on.

But, you don't need to rush to Disney Interactive's (you know, that subsidiary of one of the largest entertainment companies in the world that squandered its enormous capital in games) defense just to get a dig in at Schreier.

When the 5000th interview or preview with a dev going, "yeah, I'm so excited to be working on this game and it's been a wonderful experience with our partners" is released, do you similarly bemoan the lack of "the other side being represented?" Somehow, I doubt it.

@lapsariangiraff: Thinking that I am rushing to defend Disney says more about you than it does me lol. No idea how you jumped to that conclusion.

We do hear the other side of game development. Watch a No Clip series.

Jason is only concerned with the negative of the industry. I know there are negatives, not denying them. But to me it’s a dull story and exploitive writing. And not the whole story.

I would rather read about a creative person overcoming adversity and negativity than becoming bitter and bitching to a reporter about it.

@nillock: Cool. Well. I do watch No Clip, and there are several chapters in Press Reset that deal with success stories too, but I digress.

Have fun being mad at random writers based on second-hand impressions on the internet, I guess?

And for everyone saying Mobile games didn’t come along and outsell console games...

Mobile games are still the biggest slice of the industry's pie, representing 46% of revenue in 2019, and 49% in 2020. (PC gaming made up 22% of revenue for 2020, and console gaming made up 29%.) Mobile is obviously all-digital, and a big part of why the figures disproportionately favour digital spending. Dec 23, 2020

@ Kemuri07 I’m not moving the goal posts, Epic Mickey one and two didn’t set the gaming world on fire. They were passion projects by a guy who loved 1930’s Disney much more than the gaming audience did. Bravo for him for convincing someone to fund them, but Gamespot gave the first one a 6, the second one a 5.

As a creative person myself, sometimes passion projects are lead by tunnel vision and lose site of the target audience. It’s an awful feeling when they don’t work out. You have to accept it and move on. Blaming others in a tell all book is not the way to move on.

@kemuri07:To my memory the discussions of consoles being or not being wasn't in a few cycles but much more around the corner. Also, as late as around 2008 Giant Bomb was laughing at the idea of how long the console cycle would last (back when console manufacturers were talking about 10 years) and how things will move on and new consoles will come after about 5 years as usual, which didn't turn out to be the case. That discussion, as that generation chugged on, turned into the grey zone in which questions on whether new consoles would even pop up and if they did if it would be the death knell for the concept. Yeah, the Wii sold well, but the Wii was an anamoly at the time due to it's wider than average appeal to groups of people that never even played games before making it a really poor example of consoles future relevance.

Fortine is an equally poor example, you can't predict a lighting in a bottle event so you can't make your business around that either way. I'm not arguing business always pick winners and they have all the answers to what will be successful, obviously they don't. Even business will fall for FOMO or FUD, to use their own lingo. But I object to the idea that enthusiasts looking in from the outside think they know the industry better than people within the industry. Can numbers predict everything? Of course not. But lack of numbers also means you lack a certain insight into why people make the decisions they do and it's also an assumption to make that business only look at numbers as a business variable.

But this all is whatever, my point is predicting the future is near impossible even for people who really know the industry.

@lapsariangiraff: I’m not mad at anyone. Good lord man smoke a joint or something lol.

@nillock: What are you talking about?

Nobody is arguing that mobile didn't take off. The point is...you don't have to choose. Look at Warner Brothers. They make mobile games AND console games and they make money in both markets. There's no reason that Disney couldn't have done both.

The execs were wrong that the PC/console markets were dying, which is what related to Epic Mickey 2. They were not wrong that mobile was growing but this is Disney. You don't need to pull out of console and PC in order to invest in Mobile. You can do both.

And in point of fact Disney licenses its properties to both mobile and console/PC games to this very day. Right now. They're still in the console market, albeit through third parties.

@nillock:It's just such a strange use of your time. You log onto a forum to complain about a book you haven't read, you reduce legitimate grievances about working conditions to "bitching" and just "not overcoming adversity", painting the whole exercise as some slimy tabloid "tell-all..."

I calmly bring up that while mobile is really popular, it didn't end traditional gaming, and that Press Reset does have positive stories as well, (and interviews with people who enjoyed their time at some of these studios, but hey, don't let what's actually in the book dictate what you complain about,) and your first response is to just tell me to smoke a joint? What?

"Lol I'm not mad u just need to chill" -- that's your galaxy-brain take?

@bigsocrates: “ The point is...you don't have to choose.”

No, they did have to choose where to spend their particular budget for that particular division at the time.

Splitting the budget and half assing two projects instead of fully funding one probably wasn’t on the table.

“ There's no reason that Disney couldn't have done both.”

See above.

@nillock: This is wrong. First of all you actually don't know anything about Disney's internal budgeting at that point in time (or at least you've not provided any evidence that you do.) There's no particular reason to think that they couldn't have gotten more budget if they'd wanted to. This is Disney in 2010, post launch of the MCU. They were swimming in cash and credit. So you're just making up facts now about how they budgeted etc...

And even if it WERE true that these particular executives were budget constrained and were making choices on that basis that just pushes the blame higher up the ladder to whatever execs had ultimate say. So it doesn't really change anything except the specific people who were to blame at Disney.

The point is that you made the claim that the executives (whatever level they were at) were right that the console/PC (there is a PC version so we need to include that) market was dying, and in fact it is now bigger than it ever was. Whoever thought that was wrong. And Disney as a corporation could easily have afforded to pursue projects in both spaces, which it ultimately did.

One thing you're ignoring here is that Disney in fact pivoted into the console space again with projects like Disney Infinity before pivoting back out.

So no, Disney did not have to choose.

@lapsariangiraff: Actually the console market DID die. The PlayStation 4 launched in 2013. It is 2021. You'd think Sony would have a successor console planned now. But if you go into a store and say "do you have a PlayStation 5 in stock" they will say "no" and none of the major e-retailers have PlayStation 5s in stock either. If the console market were still alive they would, therefore we can only conclude that it's dead.

@lapsariangiraff: Going to agree to disagree I guess.

@bigsocratesRIP Playstation

@bigsocrates: We are both speculating. I’m speculating based on the decision they made. You are speculating based on “company has tons of money and can do whatever it wants”, which is never true. Especially a small division within a large company who just released John Carter of Mars.

@nillock: It's easy to look up what actually happened in 2010.

“The 2010 fiscal year was a financial and strategic success for The Walt Disney Company with performance driven by great content like Toy Story 3 and the way we benefited from that content across our many businesses."

Disney made $3.9 billion in net income in 2010, an increase of 20% over 2009. So yeah, they could have funded both mobile and console development if they'd wanted to.

But the actual issue here is whether the executives were correct that the console/PC market was dying. They were 1000% absolutely wrong. You said they were right about that, and they weren't.

We don't actually know what specific mobile projects got the Epic Mickey funding and how they panned out, so we can't say whether that particular decision was right or wrong. What we do know is that the console market didn't die. It grew.

You said that they were "absolutely right" that consoles were on their way out and...they weren't. They were wrong. The console market is bigger now than it was then. Everything else about this specific decision and Disney's internal budgeting process and what they actually did with the money and whether that made them more than what Epic Mickey 2 properly funded would have is just speculation. But console's not being on their way out? That's fact.

@bigsocrates: Yes, I was wrong because I didn’t take their words literally.

I understood it as they thought mobile was going to be bigger than consoles. Which is probably the correct context. But it seems the rules for this board is I cannot infer context from a book I haven’t read. So I am wrong.

Console games are awesome and sell so much more than mobile. Epic Mickey 1 & 2 are masterpieces and best sellers. Everyone loves Oswald the Rabbit.

Disney has enough money to spend whatever they want willy nilly without any analysis or metrics to back it up. Just like every company. There should have been a Lone Ranger 2.

I apologize. I love and defend Disney and all corporations, and Jason Scrier is the best darn writer that has ever lived.

Now how do I turn off email notifications?

@nillock: Good to know we're finally at the point you're burning out and doing the whole trolling thing. Good work. Again and again we've told you why you've wrong, and you seem to persist in arguing about semantics in order to not have to admit that you were wrong. For the last time: Technically the disney execs were right about Mobile's dominance in the gaming wrong. They were wrong about everything else. And their incompetence is what caused Epic Mickey to fail.

Let it be known that I am no stan for Epic Mickey. In fact, I've never played the game. Nor am I saying that there is no place for people who have their eye on the financial side of things. You need to have a balance in both the creative and the money business. I totally get that. That is not what happened in this scenario, and it's become a bigger issue in which executives and suits chase after profits rather than focus on the creative aspect of gaming. This is how we get loot boxes. This is how we get games that are clearly not finished and rushed. This is how employees work incredibly long hours that no person should. And the fact that some of you try to justify tells me that the system is doing its work. I am not some naive butterfly who doesn't understand business. But everything we've seen and read about the gaming industry suggest that gaming has quickly become unsustainable, and a lot of that is due to the choices of execs in the pursuit of money, not because they're interested in making better games.

@nillock: I just want you to know it's okay to log off before embarrassing yourself publicly next time.

@hayt: what a sick burn! So clever! Good for you!

@ Kemuri07 I didn’t read that, so you can let it go.

@nillock: but you replied to me anyways. Doing a great job at the whole "I don't care by posting how much I don't care" flex. Cute.

Childish trolling aside, let me put it to everyone else like this: We have heard the "other side" of game development via BTS videos from developers, press conferences, and social media posts that cast video game development as hard, but worthwhile endeavor. But more importantly, there's not really that much incentive for employees to go against their company and say anything other than "I love my job." Not suggesting that there aren't people who do love what they do, but that doesn't dismiss the problems that have been long since reported about game development, even before Schrier became a known name. Warren Spector is fucking Warren Spector, so no one is going to really fuck with him, or at least he's made enough money that he's pretty much fine. A lower level developer on the other hand is risking reprisals and possibly losing their jobs by admitting frustration with the work. As the video I posted said--and it would help some of you guys to actualy watch it--companies like EA, Ubisoft, and Blizzard go to great lengths to ensure that there is a continued lack of transparency in how games are actually made. Which leads to scenarios like nillock mindless jobbing for corporations who couldn't give a fuck about them in the long run.

Keep in mind, the game industry is not separated from wage labor in general. The same issues apparent in work now (low wages, lack of job security, long hours) are very much apparent in the game industry.