GarageGames
by Joshua Dallman · 10/21/2006 (3:05 am) · 20 comments
Hey gang!
I've been a producer intern at the Garage for two weeks now -- a drop in the bucket to be sure -- but boy am I already in the thick of it (raises white flag). I predicted I'd have to put my studio to rest, and I was right. It's not just about time but mental energy. GG is unquestionably my present focus. Shelled will be out soon as-is.
The value of putting my studio to rest is already apparent. GG is doing huge things, and the opportunities here far outweigh my opportunities as a struggling one-man indie. Few days have passed where I haven't been blown away by the opportunities. It's not about whether they exist, but which ones to pursue.
My purpose in wanting indiedom was to (1) bring my game ideas to life and (2) buck the corporate working world which I have for 8 years detested as a tech industry employee. Could my goals for becoming indie be met by ironically giving up my independence? Happily, a resounding yes. Both purposes find fulfillment at GG.
First, GG has made several games, from ambitious console games to smaller tech demos. GG will always be in the business of making great games. There is and will always be opportunity to contribute to games in development and bring my game ideas to life.
Second, GarageGames is as non-corporate as you can get. Sure there's certain standard business matters, but this isn't cubeville with pointy-haired managers. When you have passionate, self-motivated people, there's no need for the corporate working world BS that everyone with a day job learns to live with.
The last 3 years spent building my studio were not in vain. I thought I was learning to make games, but I was actually learning much more than that -- I was learning the industry, how to manage projects, how to evaluate games critically, how to make decisions, how to communicate effectively, and how to lead a team towards a shipped product. I didn't realize this until now -- I had my eye only on the finish line, not how I was changing as I was getting there. But it was essential for me to go through to have the skills to do producing now -- I couldn't have done this job one or two years ago. I've had to switch gears as to what I worked so long and hard for, as what I got out of it wasn't what I expected or worked towards, yet is so much more.
From my indie experience I can now empathize with indie developers as a producer, because I've been there and I know what it's like, even if I didn't quite myself "make it" and learned lessons the hard way and too late. But had I not tried it, working with developers I'd be an outsider -- like a professor teaching film who himself has never made one. This insider view was never appreciated until now.
Here's a scrap of irony, and perhaps a lesson. I was told that Sploidz, not Shelled, led to this opportunity. Shelled was $9,000, two years, a dozen people, my "baby," and a huge struggle. Sploidz was $1,000, one year, a couple people, and a fun side project. The game I put the least effort into made the most impact. The lesson is to never underestimate the value of small, fun projects.
What am I doing at the Garage? Strangely, it's exactly what I've done for Red Thumb Games for the past 3 years (producing), so the transition is seamless. Most of my day is spent in email communication and playtesting evaluation, just like before. Except now it's for a huge number of games (internal and external) instead of just my own. It's Red Thumb Games squared (then add four!).
There's endless other tasks outside this focus -- working VERY closely with marketing on any variety of tasks (game related or not), attending to the game store, doing some frontline customer service and community building, working with Tim on some third party or contracting stuff, seeding the Torque suite out there, and following up on anything Jeff sends my way, to name a few. But producing games is the focus, and even for an internship it's a dream come true.
Why? Well for example, on my second day an obscure game landed on my desk that was exactly the game that I'm in this industry and on the indie side for. It was confirmation that there is artistry in this medium and that I'm not in the wrong place looking for it. It was spine-tingling in its originality, a work of art in its own right. And no publisher would touch it -- too artsy.
The next week I stumbled upon another game that got me just as excited. Not an artsy game, but a fun, original, addictive little 2D game that I couldn't get out of my head. And no publisher would touch it either.
Both games are coming to the GG game store.
If such games only appeared once a month, let alone each week, I could do this forever. The idea of seeking, recognizing, nurturing, producing, and helping to bring to market awesome games, especially games that other companies and producers pass over, is almost infinitely appealing.
However, if that were all I were doing I would be a mere connoisseur, not an artist. That's where the fun of internal development comes in. Games are a team effort more than most art forms, and with this team there is amazing creative potential.
Speaking of creative possibility, there are BIG ideas floating around here, and it seems to be the rule. In one meeting Jeff threw out an idea that was so big, I literally asked him to repeat because I thought I misheard it. Did he REALLY just say that? With a straight face? Holy smokes! Then I threw out a big idea (actually kinda medium-ish) that seemed so absurd I wasn't sure if I was joking or not myself, and it was well received. Nowhere in the industry is there this kind of openness to possibility combined with the experience, resources, knowledge, and guts to execute on it. Competition, beware!
As a concrete example in thinking big, I was talking to Jeff about trends, and he mentioned a recent trend that I thought would make an interesting and profitable game, and I thought myself clever for recognizing it. He abruptly dismissed it. Anyone can figure out trends and sell x units, but you can sell x to the z power from totally original ideas. And not that it's about sales (it's SO not about sales), but you get the idea.
Thinking obvious is where you can connect the dots and paint by the numbers and imagine the whole thing end-to-end before the idea is even fleshed out. Thinking big is something altogether different. It's a skill and it takes practice. In some ways, I'm remembering and re-learning how to do it, atrophied from my years of working for the man. Being at a company like this, where more is expected of you, you're pushed to move beyond how you're comfortable thinking and doing things. It's a challenge, but a tremendous growth opportunity as well. Every day I learn not just new things, but new ways of thinking. Just this week, in defending a certain position, I later realized the only reason I was taking that erroneous position was because that was the way things were always done.
Already in the course of evaluating games here, I've whittled my own list of game ideas in half. My taste is being honed, and every day brings further refinement. So many ideas are obvious trends, or clones with too-small variations, or "games the way they've always been done," or so out of scope they're unrealistic.
Thinking big doesn't mean making a big game -- on the contrary, we've long wanted more completed games out there, a culprit of which is over-scoping. If you're a small part-time team, pretty much ANYTHING in 3D, no matter how simple, is already over-scoped.
2D game creation will always be a flagship product. Why? Game technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years, but human brains haven't. 2D games will always be popular with audiences. To boot, they're cheaper to make than 3D games, easier to manage and design, and have a big market. And there's ample 2D game ideas yet to be discovered. I can't encourage the community enough to develop small, fun, tightly designed, innovative, iterated, grin-inducing, addicting, playtested, polished 2D games. We want to see them and we want to publish them. Actually, polished or not -- just make sure it's fun! This is not a new policy, this has always been the case. We are about great games.
Keep making games and keep sending them our way. We are paying attention, and there is opportunity for you!
Well that's my half-month insider report from here. If the coming weeks are "merely" more of the same, I will be one busy, challenged, happy indie!!!
Josh
I've been a producer intern at the Garage for two weeks now -- a drop in the bucket to be sure -- but boy am I already in the thick of it (raises white flag). I predicted I'd have to put my studio to rest, and I was right. It's not just about time but mental energy. GG is unquestionably my present focus. Shelled will be out soon as-is.
The value of putting my studio to rest is already apparent. GG is doing huge things, and the opportunities here far outweigh my opportunities as a struggling one-man indie. Few days have passed where I haven't been blown away by the opportunities. It's not about whether they exist, but which ones to pursue.
My purpose in wanting indiedom was to (1) bring my game ideas to life and (2) buck the corporate working world which I have for 8 years detested as a tech industry employee. Could my goals for becoming indie be met by ironically giving up my independence? Happily, a resounding yes. Both purposes find fulfillment at GG.
First, GG has made several games, from ambitious console games to smaller tech demos. GG will always be in the business of making great games. There is and will always be opportunity to contribute to games in development and bring my game ideas to life.
Second, GarageGames is as non-corporate as you can get. Sure there's certain standard business matters, but this isn't cubeville with pointy-haired managers. When you have passionate, self-motivated people, there's no need for the corporate working world BS that everyone with a day job learns to live with.
The last 3 years spent building my studio were not in vain. I thought I was learning to make games, but I was actually learning much more than that -- I was learning the industry, how to manage projects, how to evaluate games critically, how to make decisions, how to communicate effectively, and how to lead a team towards a shipped product. I didn't realize this until now -- I had my eye only on the finish line, not how I was changing as I was getting there. But it was essential for me to go through to have the skills to do producing now -- I couldn't have done this job one or two years ago. I've had to switch gears as to what I worked so long and hard for, as what I got out of it wasn't what I expected or worked towards, yet is so much more.
From my indie experience I can now empathize with indie developers as a producer, because I've been there and I know what it's like, even if I didn't quite myself "make it" and learned lessons the hard way and too late. But had I not tried it, working with developers I'd be an outsider -- like a professor teaching film who himself has never made one. This insider view was never appreciated until now.
Here's a scrap of irony, and perhaps a lesson. I was told that Sploidz, not Shelled, led to this opportunity. Shelled was $9,000, two years, a dozen people, my "baby," and a huge struggle. Sploidz was $1,000, one year, a couple people, and a fun side project. The game I put the least effort into made the most impact. The lesson is to never underestimate the value of small, fun projects.
What am I doing at the Garage? Strangely, it's exactly what I've done for Red Thumb Games for the past 3 years (producing), so the transition is seamless. Most of my day is spent in email communication and playtesting evaluation, just like before. Except now it's for a huge number of games (internal and external) instead of just my own. It's Red Thumb Games squared (then add four!).
There's endless other tasks outside this focus -- working VERY closely with marketing on any variety of tasks (game related or not), attending to the game store, doing some frontline customer service and community building, working with Tim on some third party or contracting stuff, seeding the Torque suite out there, and following up on anything Jeff sends my way, to name a few. But producing games is the focus, and even for an internship it's a dream come true.
Why? Well for example, on my second day an obscure game landed on my desk that was exactly the game that I'm in this industry and on the indie side for. It was confirmation that there is artistry in this medium and that I'm not in the wrong place looking for it. It was spine-tingling in its originality, a work of art in its own right. And no publisher would touch it -- too artsy.
The next week I stumbled upon another game that got me just as excited. Not an artsy game, but a fun, original, addictive little 2D game that I couldn't get out of my head. And no publisher would touch it either.
Both games are coming to the GG game store.
If such games only appeared once a month, let alone each week, I could do this forever. The idea of seeking, recognizing, nurturing, producing, and helping to bring to market awesome games, especially games that other companies and producers pass over, is almost infinitely appealing.
However, if that were all I were doing I would be a mere connoisseur, not an artist. That's where the fun of internal development comes in. Games are a team effort more than most art forms, and with this team there is amazing creative potential.
Speaking of creative possibility, there are BIG ideas floating around here, and it seems to be the rule. In one meeting Jeff threw out an idea that was so big, I literally asked him to repeat because I thought I misheard it. Did he REALLY just say that? With a straight face? Holy smokes! Then I threw out a big idea (actually kinda medium-ish) that seemed so absurd I wasn't sure if I was joking or not myself, and it was well received. Nowhere in the industry is there this kind of openness to possibility combined with the experience, resources, knowledge, and guts to execute on it. Competition, beware!
As a concrete example in thinking big, I was talking to Jeff about trends, and he mentioned a recent trend that I thought would make an interesting and profitable game, and I thought myself clever for recognizing it. He abruptly dismissed it. Anyone can figure out trends and sell x units, but you can sell x to the z power from totally original ideas. And not that it's about sales (it's SO not about sales), but you get the idea.
Thinking obvious is where you can connect the dots and paint by the numbers and imagine the whole thing end-to-end before the idea is even fleshed out. Thinking big is something altogether different. It's a skill and it takes practice. In some ways, I'm remembering and re-learning how to do it, atrophied from my years of working for the man. Being at a company like this, where more is expected of you, you're pushed to move beyond how you're comfortable thinking and doing things. It's a challenge, but a tremendous growth opportunity as well. Every day I learn not just new things, but new ways of thinking. Just this week, in defending a certain position, I later realized the only reason I was taking that erroneous position was because that was the way things were always done.
Already in the course of evaluating games here, I've whittled my own list of game ideas in half. My taste is being honed, and every day brings further refinement. So many ideas are obvious trends, or clones with too-small variations, or "games the way they've always been done," or so out of scope they're unrealistic.
Thinking big doesn't mean making a big game -- on the contrary, we've long wanted more completed games out there, a culprit of which is over-scoping. If you're a small part-time team, pretty much ANYTHING in 3D, no matter how simple, is already over-scoped.
2D game creation will always be a flagship product. Why? Game technology has changed a lot in the last 20 years, but human brains haven't. 2D games will always be popular with audiences. To boot, they're cheaper to make than 3D games, easier to manage and design, and have a big market. And there's ample 2D game ideas yet to be discovered. I can't encourage the community enough to develop small, fun, tightly designed, innovative, iterated, grin-inducing, addicting, playtested, polished 2D games. We want to see them and we want to publish them. Actually, polished or not -- just make sure it's fun! This is not a new policy, this has always been the case. We are about great games.
Keep making games and keep sending them our way. We are paying attention, and there is opportunity for you!
Well that's my half-month insider report from here. If the coming weeks are "merely" more of the same, I will be one busy, challenged, happy indie!!!
Josh
#2
So umm whats the point of the torque engine then ?
10/21/2006 (4:10 am)
I found this statement interesting : "ANYTHING in 3D, no matter how simple, is already over-scoped."So umm whats the point of the torque engine then ?
#3
10/21/2006 (4:56 am)
It's out of context. I'm talking about properly sizing a project, not saying not to do 3D. Even 2D projects can get out of scope and never get completed. I'm emphasizing to dramatic effect to start small. 
#4
Torque has a dual audiance imo, hobbiests, that fit the small part-time definition (sometimes large part-time ;) that may never finish the game due to the amount of work required and lack of time working on it on and off, but that probably isn't their goal anyway. They're in it for the journey, reaching the destination would just be a nice bonus.
Then you have the indie company that work full time, the scope of whos projects can be higher than the hobbiests and still be completed. Here the destination is important. Granted, most hobbiest projects out scope "indie" projects since _big_ projects usually sound more fun for a hobby.
I guess I've really oversimplified, there will be exceptions, such as the part time team spending every last spare minute dedicated to their game whilst holding down another job to pay the bills. These teams will still need to reduce the scope compared to a full time indie team though, but when you get a team of talented and determined individuals the boundaries will blur a little. Especially if they're more talented and more determined than those working full time.
There could also be hobbyiest teams that are doing this for fun but keeping the scope small because they too are interested in reaching the destination, but for them to the journey still has to be fun most of the time.
10/21/2006 (4:57 am)
Ian: I think the emphasis would be on "part of a small part-time team". A part time team can heavily increase the time it takes to accomplish even simple tasks. If you're gunning for a large scope of a game with several "unique" and key features, you could end up spending forever just adding those features before you even start working on the game proper.Torque has a dual audiance imo, hobbiests, that fit the small part-time definition (sometimes large part-time ;) that may never finish the game due to the amount of work required and lack of time working on it on and off, but that probably isn't their goal anyway. They're in it for the journey, reaching the destination would just be a nice bonus.
Then you have the indie company that work full time, the scope of whos projects can be higher than the hobbiests and still be completed. Here the destination is important. Granted, most hobbiest projects out scope "indie" projects since _big_ projects usually sound more fun for a hobby.
I guess I've really oversimplified, there will be exceptions, such as the part time team spending every last spare minute dedicated to their game whilst holding down another job to pay the bills. These teams will still need to reduce the scope compared to a full time indie team though, but when you get a team of talented and determined individuals the boundaries will blur a little. Especially if they're more talented and more determined than those working full time.
There could also be hobbyiest teams that are doing this for fun but keeping the scope small because they too are interested in reaching the destination, but for them to the journey still has to be fun most of the time.
#5
10/21/2006 (5:43 am)
Really interesting read, Joshua. Thanks for sharing :)
#6
10/21/2006 (6:50 am)
Great read. I really liked Shelled back at Not-IGC 
#7
10/21/2006 (7:47 am)
I find this information to be helpful and encouraging. Certainly, the project I've been working on is about as niche as you can get, the kind of game no publisher would ever get near. So it's good to hear that there are companies out there who are interested in these kinds of things. There is definitely something to the Long Tail theory, so hopefully there is a place for my project once it's done... 
#8
What a read and pep talk! You are right about 2D games. There is a greater possibility for shorter dev times and faster completion of games. Couple that with the pseudo multi-player functions that TGB has, it'll be very interesting what pops out in the next few months.
Nice read man :)
10/21/2006 (10:27 am)
Joshua,What a read and pep talk! You are right about 2D games. There is a greater possibility for shorter dev times and faster completion of games. Couple that with the pseudo multi-player functions that TGB has, it'll be very interesting what pops out in the next few months.
Nice read man :)
#9
10/21/2006 (10:44 am)
Great Plan Josh! It's definitely been a huge help having you around this past week, more hands means faster ship dates! (And maybe I can get more rest) :)
#10
I want a tee-shirt that says that!
There is more truth in that statement than people want to hear. I'm glad you said it. For the sake of those who don't get the idea that you do actually have to learn to make games before you can make them... you can change If you're a small part-time team to If you're a small part-time team that has never made a game before. It is more than possible to make a big scaled 3d game as an indie. But it's not reasonable to try to do it before you've made smaller games before. It's just how it works. You walk before you run.
I'm happy for you that you are working with Garage Games Joshua. You really deserve it.
10/21/2006 (2:13 pm)
@JoshuaQuote:When you have passionate, self-motivated people, there's no need for the corporate working world BS that everyone with a day job learns to live with.
I want a tee-shirt that says that!
Quote:If you're a small part-time team, pretty much ANYTHING in 3D, no matter how simple, is already over-scoped
There is more truth in that statement than people want to hear. I'm glad you said it. For the sake of those who don't get the idea that you do actually have to learn to make games before you can make them... you can change If you're a small part-time team to If you're a small part-time team that has never made a game before. It is more than possible to make a big scaled 3d game as an indie. But it's not reasonable to try to do it before you've made smaller games before. It's just how it works. You walk before you run.
I'm happy for you that you are working with Garage Games Joshua. You really deserve it.
#12
10/21/2006 (6:33 pm)
josh: thanks for the clarification, i wasnt having a go at anyone, i just misread that line. nice writeup though, keep at it :)
#13
Other than that I'm glad to see you thriving in a good environment. Its a welcome change in your story which has so often been full of bumps and bruises.
10/21/2006 (11:35 pm)
I had a long reply here but all I really need to say is I call bullshit on the 3D comment ...Other than that I'm glad to see you thriving in a good environment. Its a welcome change in your story which has so often been full of bumps and bruises.
#14
There has never ever in the history of success ever been anyone worth remembering that didn't find their success after years and years of bumps and bruises. It's how it's done by the real innovators. It's called being forged in the flames of your own determination to do it or die trying. You're not a real innovator until you have learned that failure is just another step toward success and that failure doesn't even really exist unless you quit. You can't be great unless you fail. If you are a natural at something... and if that is all you ever do... you are wasting your life. If it's not hard, it's not worth it. Bumps and bruises are badges of honor. Those bumps and bruises are what got him his job at GarageGames. I hope he wears them proudly. I know I wear mine proudly. I have screwed up more than anyone around here. But I never give up. That's what I admire about Joshua. He's got the goods and he's got the guts to believe he does. That's more than just an innovator, that's a leader.
10/22/2006 (1:19 am)
Quote:Its a welcome change in your story which has so often been full of bumps and bruises.
There has never ever in the history of success ever been anyone worth remembering that didn't find their success after years and years of bumps and bruises. It's how it's done by the real innovators. It's called being forged in the flames of your own determination to do it or die trying. You're not a real innovator until you have learned that failure is just another step toward success and that failure doesn't even really exist unless you quit. You can't be great unless you fail. If you are a natural at something... and if that is all you ever do... you are wasting your life. If it's not hard, it's not worth it. Bumps and bruises are badges of honor. Those bumps and bruises are what got him his job at GarageGames. I hope he wears them proudly. I know I wear mine proudly. I have screwed up more than anyone around here. But I never give up. That's what I admire about Joshua. He's got the goods and he's got the guts to believe he does. That's more than just an innovator, that's a leader.
#15
Interested in more comments about some of the topics raised: game scope, trends, thinking big, niche publishing, 2D/3D...
10/22/2006 (2:46 am)
Actually I had a blast the last 3 years, my blogs were always upbeat, it wasn't full of bumps, just after the public playtests. Interested in more comments about some of the topics raised: game scope, trends, thinking big, niche publishing, 2D/3D...
#16
I wouldn't go that far ;)
Injoy your excitement, Joshua, while you can ;)
10/22/2006 (10:51 am)
Quote:Second, GarageGames is as non-corporate as you can get
I wouldn't go that far ;)
Injoy your excitement, Joshua, while you can ;)
#17
You're preaching to the choir here buddy. Of anyone I certainly know what it takes in terms of tenacity to stick around after getting hit over and over and over. Even once you've got something published you're no where near the goal.
@ Josh
I'm glad you can look back and say it was a blast. From your recent blogs I got a different impression. As far as comments go ... maybe some other time. I've got nothing to add that won't be taken as herasy at the moment and that's not really helping anyone.
10/22/2006 (12:03 pm)
@ AntonYou're preaching to the choir here buddy. Of anyone I certainly know what it takes in terms of tenacity to stick around after getting hit over and over and over. Even once you've got something published you're no where near the goal.
@ Josh
I'm glad you can look back and say it was a blast. From your recent blogs I got a different impression. As far as comments go ... maybe some other time. I've got nothing to add that won't be taken as herasy at the moment and that's not really helping anyone.
#18
great blog, I for one am happy to have you on board. I apologize for about making your brain explode the second day you were here by shoving way too much info at you.
@Jeremy
I would like to hear the long reply. I do not think Josh would be offended by having a discussion of this sort in his blog. He has hi-jacked other peoples blogs, so some reciprocity might be a good thing.
On the 3d vs. 2d and overscoping, I tend to agree with Josh. People who have not made a game before will make a couple of common errors.
One, they will undertake something that is of two great a scope for them to complete.
two, if they make something fun, they may have tweaked it to be enjoyable (not a bad thing) but they may have gotten lucky, as it is really easy to add way too much complexity into a 3d game without really understanding what you are doing,
and three, if they are able to keep the game in scope, they may produce something that is not compelling, as the user expectations of what a 3d game should be may not be met (this is where underscoping leads to a product that gets done but does not, for whatever reason, compel a purchase) This is not a problem of overscoping, but a similar problem of not being able to correctly determine scope.
note, this is a generalization for sure.. and that is the point. In general, most game developers will attempt a project out of scope, or at least underestimate the amount of effort it will take to get the game done.
it is way easier to get out of scope in 3d than 2d, just because the cost is higher (per asset) and the 'world' is bigger. It is much easier to work in 2d, where one has a lot more control of the play scape. That is my opinon anyway.
10/22/2006 (12:24 pm)
@Josh, great blog, I for one am happy to have you on board. I apologize for about making your brain explode the second day you were here by shoving way too much info at you.
@Jeremy
Quote:I had a long reply here but all I really need to say is I call bullshit on the 3D comment
I would like to hear the long reply. I do not think Josh would be offended by having a discussion of this sort in his blog. He has hi-jacked other peoples blogs, so some reciprocity might be a good thing.
On the 3d vs. 2d and overscoping, I tend to agree with Josh. People who have not made a game before will make a couple of common errors.
One, they will undertake something that is of two great a scope for them to complete.
two, if they make something fun, they may have tweaked it to be enjoyable (not a bad thing) but they may have gotten lucky, as it is really easy to add way too much complexity into a 3d game without really understanding what you are doing,
and three, if they are able to keep the game in scope, they may produce something that is not compelling, as the user expectations of what a 3d game should be may not be met (this is where underscoping leads to a product that gets done but does not, for whatever reason, compel a purchase) This is not a problem of overscoping, but a similar problem of not being able to correctly determine scope.
note, this is a generalization for sure.. and that is the point. In general, most game developers will attempt a project out of scope, or at least underestimate the amount of effort it will take to get the game done.
it is way easier to get out of scope in 3d than 2d, just because the cost is higher (per asset) and the 'world' is bigger. It is much easier to work in 2d, where one has a lot more control of the play scape. That is my opinon anyway.
#19
I would also like to hear the long reply. As for my preaching to the choir above, just ignore me, I misunderstood what you meant by you comments. But I would also definitely like a full discussion about 3d games for small indie teams. I think a discussion about it from all sides is good for everyone. I know I'm interested. I have a game idea that could be either 2d or 3d and it's a very great interest for me to figure out the best way to make the game.
10/22/2006 (2:11 pm)
@JeremyQuote:I would like to hear the long reply.
I would also like to hear the long reply. As for my preaching to the choir above, just ignore me, I misunderstood what you meant by you comments. But I would also definitely like a full discussion about 3d games for small indie teams. I think a discussion about it from all sides is good for everyone. I know I'm interested. I have a game idea that could be either 2d or 3d and it's a very great interest for me to figure out the best way to make the game.
#20
10/22/2006 (4:58 pm)
Quote:I would like to hear the long reply. I do not think Josh would be offended by having a discussion of this sort in his blog.Quite true, in fact the comment was intended to controversial to get people thinking and some discussion going. I could have added "working on your first game" to the "if you're a small part-time team" bit, but that's 90% of who's reading this anyway.
Associate James Urquhart
:)