Bluetracker

Tracks Blizzard employees across various accounts.

recently i've seen numerous pitches from new game startups in the vein of "we're gonna ship ambitious, incredible stuff to players but we're going to keep our company lean, under 100." in a truly self-contained startup with no publisher, i can think of 5 ways this happens:

recently i've seen numerous pitches from new game startups in the vein of "we're gonna ship ambitious, incredible stuff to players but we're going to keep our company lean, under 100." in a truly self-contained startup with no publisher, i can think of 5 ways this happens:

kchironis

Posted 3 years, 7 months ago (Source)

recently i've seen numerous pitches from new game startups in the vein of "we're gonna ship ambitious, incredible stuff to players but we're going to keep our company lean, under 100." in a truly self-contained startup with no publisher, i can think of 5 ways this happens:

Iksar

Posted 3 years, 7 months ago (Source)

@kchironis My cynical view is that the people in charge of deciding to scale a company to 100+ basically always will if they have an opportunity to. It benefits them. The non-founders or execs it doesn’t benefit miss the days of being small because they all had a seat at the table.

Iksar

Posted 3 years, 7 months ago (Source)

@kchironis Then those people leave, start their own studios, say they’ll stay small. But now, they are the execs and founders. When the opportunity to scale comes and it benefits them, the cycle continues.

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
recently i've seen numerous pitches from new game startups in the vein of "we're gonna ship ambitious, incredible stuff to players but we're going to keep our company lean, under 100." in a truly self-contained startup with no publisher, i can think of 5 ways this happens: (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1487843700344385537">None</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@kchironis My cynical view is that the people in charge of deciding to scale a company to 100+ basically always will if they have an opportunity to. It benefits them. The non-founders or execs it doesn’t benefit miss the days of being small because they all had a seat at the table. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1488046457126981632">Iksar</a>)
<hr/>

<blockquote class="quoted">
 
</blockquote>
@kchironis Then those people leave, start their own studios, say they’ll stay small. But now, they are the execs and founders. When the opportunity to scale comes and it benefits them, the cycle continues. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1488046868944748547">Iksar</a>)
<hr/>

Tweet

recently i've seen numerous pitches from new game startups in the vein of "we're gonna ship ambitious, incredible stuff to players but we're going to keep our company lean, under 100." in a truly self-contained startup with no publisher, i can think of 5 ways this happens:

@kchironis My cynical view is that the people in charge of deciding to scale a company to 100+ basically always will if they have an opportunity to. It benefits them. The non-founders or execs it doesn’t benefit miss the days of being small because they all had a seat at the table. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1488046457126981632">Source</a>)

@kchironis Then those people leave, start their own studios, say they’ll stay small. But now, they are the execs and founders. When the opportunity to scale comes and it benefits them, the cycle continues. (<a href="https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1488046868944748547">Source</a>)
 
 <hr/>