Tag: Developer experience

  • Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League’s development got so bad that it almost turned its devs away from the industry for good: ‘I could feel myself coming apart at the seams’

    Featured image Suicide Squad Kill the Justice Leagues development got so bad that it almost turned its devs away from the industry for good I could fe

    There are games that become cultural touchstones, and then there are those that feel like a cautionary tale. Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League certainly falls into the latter category. While it might offer some chaotic action, the story behind its creation is less about epic superhero mayhem and more about the brutal realities of chasing profit in the gaming industry.

    From the outset, many observers felt that the game was built not on pure creative vision, but on a desperate need to be replayable and profitable. This ambition quickly morphed into an overwhelming pressure cooker, suggesting that the goal wasn’t just to make a good game, but to construct an infinite money machine.

    This quest for monetization came at a steep cost. Post-release revelations confirmed that the project, which consumed significant resources, ended up costing Warner Bros. $200 million—a figure that starkly contrasted with the outcome.

    The developers involved, Axel Rydby and Johnny Armstrong, later spoke candidly about the experience of bringing this vision to life. They described a period marked by confidence, but also an intense sense of constraint.

    “We were coming back off hit after hit,” Armstrong recalls, suggesting a foundation of self-belief. However, that confidence quickly collided with the demands placed upon them: relentless delays and the need to justify massive investment.

    As the focus shifted entirely to financial metrics, the atmosphere changed dramatically. Rydby noted a profound sense of unease as they navigated the landscape. “I started feeling like I wasn’t making games anymore,” he explained. He felt pulled away from the creative joy and into the realm of tracking elusive marketing spreadsheets.

    The pressure amplified when developers were given impossibly tight deadlines, often just six months, with the mandate to fix bugs while simultaneously figuring out complex questions about player reach and design changes. This unrealistic expectation created an environment where development felt less like an artistic pursuit and more like a frantic scramble for targets.

    “It was a big culture shift,” Armstrong reflected. Despite putting in countless hours, the process didn’t feel like it was tangibly improving; it felt like everyone was running to stand still.

    This intense stress eventually pushed the creators to reconsider their path. Feeling drained by the chase for cash and disillusionment with the industry’s direction, Armstrong and Rydby decided to pivot. They left Rocksteady to collaborate on Secret of Circadia, an RPG deckbuilding game. This move signaled a desire to return to projects driven by passion rather than purely financial outcomes.

    Their experience with the blockbuster project served as a stark commentary on the wider gaming world. It highlighted a dangerous trend: the shift from making games out of love and personal desire to creating them solely for shareholder return. As one industry voice suggested, the simple formula for great game design is clear: “A studio makes a game because they want to make a game they want to play themselves.”

  • Data analyst finds ‘AI stigma’ on Steam can reduce the number of reviews a game gets by around 53%—and the reviews it does get are more negative

    The AI Stigma: Is Generative Art Costing Game Developers Their Reviews?

    The rise of generative AI and sophisticated chatbots has ignited a fiery debate about its role in game development. But beyond the philosophical arguments, does this new technology carry a real commercial cost? A recent deep dive into game release data suggests that while AI is a powerful tool, its use can introduce an unexpected stigma that impacts how games are received.

    Market data analyst Ross Burton conducted a comprehensive study, sampling nearly 10,000 games released between January and October 2025 to assess the impact of AI integration. The findings reveal that disclosure matters, but even more importantly, the quality behind the creation is everything.

    The initial snapshot showed that only 17.9% of sampled games explicitly disclosed the use of AI. Interestingly, games without these disclosures tended to enjoy slightly better reception: they had a higher number of reviews, fewer zero-review entries, and a median rating that was about 4% higher when focusing on games with at least 100 reviews.

    However, when the study meticulously controlled for crucial factors like publisher backing, developer experience, and game type, the picture shifted dramatically. The analysis revealed that developers utilizing AI faced a significant hurdle: they saw a approximately 53% reduction in reviews compared to their counterparts who did not use it.

    This stark statistical penalty points toward an “AI Stigma.” This effect was particularly pronounced for developers working on high-potential, ambitious titles. The study concluded that while AI is simply a tool, the perception of its use—whether it is executed sloppily or masterfully—carries significant weight in the gaming community.

    It’s important to remember that this effect wasn’t uniform. For lower-quality games, the impact of AI use was negligible. The real friction lies in how ambitious developers navigate the creative process, where the perceived quality of the output becomes inextricably linked to the developer’s reputation.

    The takeaway is clear: AI should not be viewed as a reason to avoid the technology, but rather as another tool in the developer’s arsenal. The lesson isn’t to halt innovation, but to approach the integration of tools with caution and intent. As developers push boundaries, ensuring that their creative vision—and their execution—shines through is paramount.