STALKER dev. GSC going the way of the dodo?

Jason Moyer on 9/12/2011 at 22:57

Put out 3 great games and then disappear before your publisher has a chance to turn you into a neverending sequel machine. I'll forever enjoy the STALKER games that we have and look forward to seeing what the former GSC staff gravitates to next.

Briareos H on 9/12/2011 at 23:10

Damn straight. I remember arguing with some simpleton about creativity and market demands, explaining that I'd rather see studios produce a few great games and explode, spreading influence and skill, spawning other developer gatherings etc. rather than continue producing what people and publishers want more and more.

I'll get over not playing STALKER 2, but I'll be really sad if nothing is gained from its development.
I'm sure a few of the core devs are going to find a way to keep working on something similar.

Muzman on 9/12/2011 at 23:27

I go to sleep and this happens. What on earth...?
It sounds like Grigorovich is doing it to protect himself and/or the assets somehow. Surely someone would jump in to reform a studio around this. It's not unusual for successful people/things to overreach and blow all their cash, but damn.

A lot of people are pointing the finger squarely at politics, which is a little scary.

demagogue on 9/12/2011 at 23:46

Not sure I'm as optimistic as some of you are. People & companies act on incentives, which come from history. If it takes this kind of studio to make this kind of game, and people don't feel secure in their job at this kind of studio, then I think there's less chance they'll gravitate back to another place like it.

Edit: The part about Briareos's post I'd agree with isn't that the "exploding studio" situation will be all that influential to the market itself & what games get made, but that people don't forget those kinds of games can still exist and people do buy them. It might make the job a little easier for someone trying to sell a pitch for an innovative game, to give them a reference like "Look at how well STALKER did".

PigLick on 10/12/2011 at 01:18

I'd make some 'IN RUSSIA' joke but this is just fucking sad, and kinda weird. What the hell are 'personal reasons'??

Muzman on 10/12/2011 at 01:38

Quote Posted by demagogue

Not sure I'm as optimistic as some of you are.

Shut up will ya. It's all I've got! :(

Anyway, I agree, and it is easy to forget that the average lifespan of a games studio is something like 1.5 games or maybe five years, whichever comes first. Still annoying though. The Stalker series deserves to be shackled to a bottomless pit of money like Valve so it can get the care and time it warrants.

Koki on 10/12/2011 at 07:43

Quote Posted by Briareos H

I agree 100% on the "do and die" sentiment, but honestly, do you really believe anyone will learn anything from it?

Quote Posted by some RPS twat

There is no money in games where you don’t have follow-arrows. Everyone knows that.

All STALKER games have a quest compass.

Briareos H on 10/12/2011 at 08:02

I'm sure that in the ocean of memes and bloggers over-analysing the series with terrible universalism, there'll be someone in genuine understanding, hoping to "make a game" one day.

Unfortunately what other people will learn from this just might be economic considerations. See? Their model was not economically viable, they will say. Well they can continue making derivative shooters for all I care.

Eldron on 10/12/2011 at 11:14

Wow, this is pretty sad.

But somehow something deep inside me tells me that the long development cycles they were having couldn't be healthy.

Still, personal reasons? wtf?

demagogue on 10/12/2011 at 15:51

Yeah makes it sounds like, "Well guys, I gotta new girlfriend and she thinks video games are for losers, and she's so bangworthy that I'm starting to see her point... So you guys can see yourselves to the door and good luck finding new jobs and feeding your family and all that."