Picture this: You're a passionate game developer, pouring countless hours into crafting an epic world, only to watch your project's timeline stretch endlessly because of misguided decisions at the top. It's heartbreaking, isn't it? But here's where it gets really intriguing—leadership isn't just about steering the team; it's often the hidden anchor dragging the whole ship down. In this piece, we'll dive deep into how ineffective leadership can turn what should be an exciting journey into a frustrating slog, based on insights from seasoned industry pros. And trust me, by the end, you'll be wondering: Is this a problem with individuals, or is the system itself flawed?
Back in September, we shared a story exploring developers' thoughts on why game development cycles keep ballooning over the past decade (check it out here: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/what-s-the-real-reason-games-are-taking-longer-to-make-). After it went live, we were flooded with reader feedback, with many asking, 'Why didn't you touch on the elephant in the room—terrible leadership?' Fair point, folks. I have to admit, we overlooked it because none of our initial interviewees brought it up. But that's changed now.
Defining 'bad leadership' is tricky, you know? What works at one studio might flop at another, and that's a key insight from our latest round of chats with developers. Over the past month, we connected with six veterans who've seen firsthand how weak leadership can derail timelines. They shared chilling tales of projects that dragged on or even failed spectacularly, often preferring to remain anonymous to avoid backlash. These stories highlight why folks pinning hopes on generative AI or any tech gimmick to accelerate development are missing the big picture. Think of it like this: You could have the sleekest supercar on the track, but if the boss keeps swapping out mechanics, engineers, and drivers willy-nilly, it's never going to win the race.
Drawing from these conversations, we've pinpointed seven major characteristics of subpar leaders that hinder game creation. For a related deep dive, listen to our podcast episode on lessons from Mark Darrah's time at BioWare (available at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/leadership-lessons-from-mark-darrah-s-days-at-bioware-game-developer-podcast-episode-57). This article is on the longer side, so to keep things digestible, we'll outline the behaviors we spotted across multiple discussions. It's like a quick checklist to spot if your team might be dealing with similar issues. We've organized them into seven broad categories, with brief examples of how they manifest in the workplace.
Not grasping the true nuts and bolts of game development
- Signing off on content only to scrap it later
- Requesting features without any clue on how to actually build them
- Insisting on seeing shiny, polished assets way too early in the process to guide choices
- Lousy project management, like setting impossible deadlines that ignore how different teams depend on each other
Distrusting the team
- Demanding approvals from an overload of supervisors
- Dismissing workers' input on what's feasible or not
- Penalizing or firing colleagues who voice concerns
- Brushing off alerts from quality assurance experts about potentially game-breaking bugs
Viewing developers as replaceable cogs
See AlsoBattlefield 6: XP Exploit Fixed! Strikepoint Adjustments & What You Need to KnowDonkey Kong Icons Lanky Kong and Chunky Kong Coming to Donkey Kong Bananza as Unlockable FiguresFatal Fury: City of the Wolves 1.5.0 Patch Notes - Chun-Li Joins the Fight! (Full Breakdown)Dispatch Game Sells 1 Million Units in 10 Days - Epic Launch Success!- Pushing devs to excel in genres they're unfamiliar with
- Failing to recognize that departing employees take crucial knowledge with them
- Believing it's easy to swap in new people for those who leave
Excruciatingly slow choices
- Again, needing buy-in from too many bosses
- Leaning too hard on tiny details while neglecting broader guidance across teams
- Delaying decisions for weeks or months without clear rationale
Offering scant or murky critiques
- Publishers ditching milestone versions with minimal reasoning
- Leads giving feedback like 'make it cooler' without specifics
Imposing abrupt shifts or additions mid-stream
- The infamous 'boss played X game over the weekend' scenario
Ambiguous overtime rules stemming from ignoring shifting schedules
- Vowing 'no crunch' but assigning tasks that scream overtime
- Enforcing hard caps on hours for paid workers, forcing them to grind unpaid outside work
For more on industry sustainability, explore how the Sustainable Games Alliance is tackling emissions reporting (see: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/sustainable-games-alliance-launches-emissions-reporting-framework-for-developers). These habits, often seen in project or studio heads—but sometimes in team leads too—can severely and pointlessly stall game production.
Let's break it down further, starting with the first trait: failing to understand the gritty realities of game development. The devs we interviewed recounted situations where top brass didn't get the intricate details of crafting games. For instance, 3D rigger Sol Brennan mentioned seeing seasoned leaders skip 'grey-boxing'—that's the rough, placeholder stage of designing levels—and jump straight into fancy art, unaware that any tweaks to the level later would mean redoing tons of work. (For beginners, grey-boxing is like sketching a blueprint before painting the house; it's essential for spotting issues early.)
On a similar note, an anonymous game designer talked about working under bosses with outdated or zero experience in the field. At several companies, these leaders would greenlight content for production, only to discard it after testing, maybe just out of boredom from replaying it repeatedly. They dubbed this 'circular iteration,' where final versions often ended up eerily similar to scrapped early ones. These same leaders would get annoyed by bugs in prototypes, forgetting they'd likely be fixed by launch. Sometimes, they'd demand extra effort because they couldn't visualize pitches from the team. Producer Masao Kobayashi explained how non-dev backgrounds lead managers to demand 'final-game-looking' materials to comprehend ideas. To satisfy them, teams churn out 'fancy concept art and hyper-polished early demos'—but these are often fake and wasted, tossed aside quickly. As we discussed before (referencing our earlier article at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/what-s-the-real-reason-games-are-taking-longer-to-make-), rising graphics standards make this even more time-intensive, diverting effort from the actual finished product.
Kobayashi also highlighted how leaders frequently misjudge timelines and inter-team connections, leading to some groups idling while others are buried under mismatched workloads. And for a real-world parallel, think about massive titles like Borderlands 4—check our podcast on its creation (at: https://www.gamedeveloper.com/production/making-a-gargantuan-game-like-borderlands-4-game-developer-podcast-ep-55) to see how understanding these realities can make or break a project.
Moving on, another big issue is a lack of trust in employees. An anonymous game writer shared that in their experience across AAA, AA, and indie projects, it was the big-budget ones where distrust ran rampant. They described a high-stakes game where every team needed nods not just from their own leads, but from outsiders with no real expertise in the work. When consensus couldn't be reached, projects stalled for weeks, with busy folks hard to coordinate.
'This struck me as a deep mistrust in their workforce,' they said. Plus, the industry often downplays quality assurance, leading leaders to ignore warnings from QA teams. Community manager and QA expert Rose Whitcomb recalled a game where bugs in less-popular characters were sidelined in favor of fan favorites. The team prioritized the latter, but those neglected bugs caused crashes in combos, and post-launch, with characters buffed, they had to scramble for hotfixes that could've been avoided months earlier.
But here's where it gets controversial: Is this mistrust really 'bad,' or could it sometimes stem from necessary oversight in complex projects? We'll circle back to that.
Next up: treating developers as interchangeable parts. Kobayashi and others observed how bosses would chase trends based on recent hits, not accounting for their team's lack of experience in new genres. For example, someone skilled in cute platformers might struggle to switch to a competitive MOBA like League of Legends. MOBA experts could fumble with third-person shooters, and shooter vets might not nail family-friendly games. It's not just about talent overlap—there's a learning curve that takes time.
Brennan also noted how leaders sometimes refuse to retain or promote key talent, only to regret it when those people jump ship for better gigs. This becomes even trickier with turnover, which is ramping up thanks to layoffs and outsourcing to firms like Keywords or Virtuos. Kobayashi pointed out that 'with massive firings and more reliance on external partners, old issues resurface as fresh, costly problems that eat up extra time.'
Then there's the failure of sluggish decision-making. An anonymous dev remembered the 2000s era where their lead couldn't choose between options, even simple ones, dragging things out for months while obsessing over story minutiae. This can tie into approval overload, as the writer mentioned. Whether it's one indecisive person or a sluggish group, the hesitation ripples through the project.
Providing useless or unclear feedback ranks high on frustrations too. Devs described critiques that were all vagueness, no substance. One level designer quoted a colleague's analogy: 'Get me a rock. No, not that one—a better rock.' They'd iterate endlessly until deadlines forced a ship. For a prime example, watch Double Fine and Two Player Productions' doc on Psychonauts 2 (you can find it at: https://youtu.be/vdsJ27p61uM?list=PLIhLvue17Sd70y34zh2erWWpMyOnh4UN_), which shows how fuzzy input from founder Tim Schafer and lead Zak McClendon led to chaos, with some working on R&D during alpha.
Demanding sudden pivots after weekend inspirations is another classic. Over a decade since Dark Souls' release in 2011, devs still joke about the 'Dark Souls effect'—where leaders play a hit like Dark Souls, Bloodborne, or Elden Ring, then mandate changes. The anonymous writer added that movies or shows can spark narrative overhauls too late in the game, cascading delays. This is worsened by distrust and ignorance of costs. The best leaders, though, heeded team warnings about feasibility, adjusting or providing guidance.
Finally, vague crunch policies stem from denying evolving timelines. The saying 'crunch stems from bad planning' holds, but leadership's handling can unite or destroy teams. On the cultural side, 'no-crunch' rules bred resentment when some clocked out while others stayed late, feeling pressured to ignore policy. For hourly workers, hour caps mean unpaid overtime when goals are unrealistic, letting the game rake in millions without reimbursement.
And this is the part most people miss: When does bad leadership become structural versus personal? A line from writer Robert Caro echoes here—'Power reveals.' It's more nuanced than 'power corrupts,' suggesting we examine not just actions but the power structure itself. There's no silver bullet for faster development or better leadership. Sometimes, educating on power dynamics resolves mid-project jams. Other times, early planning and sticking to choices turn studios into juggernauts. Redefine 'power' in gaming, and it can change what it exposes in leaders.
Yet, some in power will always show they're unfit—through verbal abuse, exclusion, or pitting teams against each other. At worst, they might harass or discriminate, hiding until exposed. This paradox plagues the industry: Reform is vital, but bad apples often slip through via connections.
AI won't solve this. To accelerate game dev, do what poor leaders won't: Listen to the creators. But here's the controversial twist—maybe some labeled 'bad' are just visionary mavericks clashing with bureaucracy? What do you think? Is bad leadership a fixable flaw or an industry-wide curse? Do you agree that listening is key, or disagree? Share your opinions in the comments—we'd love to hear counterpoints!
