The Hollywood business / development process ...

As part of my day (and night, and weekend) job, I manage software, services, and development teams at the Enterprise level.

I've been meaning to write about this for some time, but this recent blog post from JC Barnett, "Do as the Hollywodians" [sic], motivated me to do it.

Barnett does a good job (as far as I can tell) of breaking out the video game development process (or asset pipeline, or business relationship) in theory, versus in practice, versus what could work -- the "Hollywood example".

This third development model ("The system of tomorrow"), though a bit simplified, is something that has merit, along with challenges.

Interestingly, I think the proposal lags a bit from a US perspective (Barnett is in Japan), which may be due in part to geographic limitations (they're a little further away from Hollywood), and in part to cultural constraints (which comes out in the "Cons" section of the article).

Also, this is the "Business as Unusual" mentality that is the foundation for Wideload Games (check out the excellent postmortem on Stubbs the Zombie: Rebel Without a Pulse, which I reviewed here).

And it's kind of the model it looks like new publisher Gamecock is going to support (depending on who you ask).

And, honestly, it's not that far from development at BigHugeCorp (mine or others), where a Product or Marketing group (analogous to a video game publisher) is trying to get things made as cheaply and professionally and as completely as possible. They honestly don't care whether that's done by an in-house team, via domestic outsourcing, onshored, offshored, or if it's one or multiple companies.

But I have questions:

1. What companies basically follow this model?
   
   I suspect, besides the beforementioned Wideload / Gamecock, there are other companies already following this model. I suspect Critical Mass Interactive ("both a video game (or 'interactive entertainment') developer and an outsource provider to developers and publishers") follows this model.
   
   And if it's not the model Foundation 9 Entertainment is following, it seems like it should be (and could be an awesome double threat, when partnered with the consistent, high-caliber core and ancillary skills those attached development studios could provide each other).
   
   And then there are companies like The Animation Farm, who both employ this model (at least to a degree) in their outsourcing downstream, and are in turn a piece of the asset feed upstream for development houses or publishers who employee this model.
   
2. How do the models compare?
   
   Much like there are varying applications and flavors of development methodologies or philosophies (scrum, Agile, RUP, ad nauseum), how does, say this model compare and contrast to the The Animation Farm's model, compare and contrast to the Wideload model, compare and contrast to ...
   
3. Are there challenges with and concessions from development methodologies / philosophies?
   
   Speaking of various applications and flavors, are there challenges with this model in the context of scrum / Agile development methodologies (and other iterative methodologies in particular). If so, what are the concessions (either to this "Hollywodian" development model, or to the scrum / Agile development methodology, or to the asset provider model, etc.)?

These are far more than just academic questions for me.

As I consider making a change from my current BigHugeCorp kind of gig, I'm trying to marry my Enterprise development and outsourcing background, video game aspirations, Biz involvement, and federation of independent development and QA resources (yeah, I've got peeps, and we're arguably more Romulan than Federation) into something more appealing than a hideous, multi-headed monster.

And more powerful. More powerful beyond words ...

I want insight.

So if you know something (and are willing to share), contact me through my Website (or directly if you already have that contact info).

I'm looking forward to hearing from someone who knows....