Study on the Relationship Between Creativity of Video Games

Development and Rigid Management Process

Zhiqian Zhang

School of Systems and Enterprises, Stevens Institute of Technology, 1 Castle Point Terrace, Hoboken, U.S.A.

Keywords: Video Game Development, Management Process, Organizational Structure, Creativity, Innovation.

Abstract: In recent years, the video game industry has faced unprecedented opportunities and challenges. Increasingly

fierce market competition has forced video game companies to develop games with better gameplay,

innovation along with higher overall quality. However, in the process of game development, the ability to

innovate is often greatly affected by the company's management structure and process. This paper analyses

the history of Ubisoft's development, management process and change in terms of innovation ability,

exploring how specific company management process has its impact on creativity and innovation. Three

specific perspectives: project development process, relationship between technology and innovation,

facilitating role of informal organizations, are used to demonstrate how management strategies influence team

creativity in both positive and negative ways. The study found that as the industry environment and consumer

perceptions change, the management structure and processes are supposed to evolve in response. If

adjustments are not made in a timely manner, problems in management processes are able to radiate to all

levels of the company. Once the balance between efficiency and creativity is lost, the process of restoring that

balance could be long and bumpy.

1 INTRODUCTION

It is a significant milestone for the rapidly evolving

video gaming industry during these two years, with

more opportunities and challenges appearing. The

global video games market was estimated to be worth

188.3 billion dollars in 2023 and is expected to reach

254.6 billion dollars by 2030. As game development

technology continues to advance and global

connectivity reaches unprecedented levels, the

industry is gradually being pushed to the forefront of

innovation and cultural influence. At the same time,

it is hard to ignore that gaming industry had

experienced a massive wave of layoffs since 2023.

Although the layoff wave is caused by a series of

factors of post-pandemic era, it reflects, to some

extent, that leading companies of the industry are

experiencing the pain of adjusting organizational

structure and management process as well. In

addition, since the game field becomes increasingly

saturated with different types of games, developers

have to be more committed to providing a unique,

creative and interesting game experience, which in

https://orcid.org/0009-0008-3130-6383

turn puts forward a higher demand for originality in

game development.

Video games are essentially a cultural product, a

complex combination of technology, art and

interactive storytelling (Cohendet and Simon, 2007).

In addition to these creative aspects, such a cultural

product is also the result of a team-based industrial

project regulated by a complex framework.

Nowadays, with the increasing competition in the

industry, the demands and standards from the top

management are sometimes on the opposite side of

the developers' quest for game quality. Under this

framework, the top management will make demands

on developers from a business perspective based on

time, cost and market considerations. From the

perspective of the development team, sometimes they

have no choice but to accept the management process

or related decisions under these management

frameworks, which may result in a significant loss of

creativity and uniqueness during the game

development process.

Therefore, for the management of a large-scale

video game project, it is actually a result of

Zhang, Z.

Study on the Relationship Between Creativity of Video Games Development and Rigid Management Process.

DOI: 10.5220/0013253200004558

Paper published under CC license (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Modern Logistics and Supply Chain Management (MLSCM 2024), pages 177-184

ISBN: 978-989-758-738-2

177

maintaining a delicate balance (DeFillippi and

Arthur, 1998). On the one hand, it is important to

stimulate the creativity and motivation of team

members from different backgrounds or communities

and try to integrate their expertise in a flexible way.

On the other, it is about trying to meet time, cost and

market requirements with a standardized but not too

rigid or demanding management process (Lampel et

al., 2000). By analysing the choppy history of

Ubisoft, this paper explores how changes of

management process affect this balance between

creativity and institutional productivity, whether it is

stimulating the innovation or curbing it with more

chaos and inefficiency. Besides, by analysing the

mechanism of this impact, it is hoped that some more

general, potential optimizations of the management

framework for video game development can be

provided.

2 BACKGROUNDS

2.1 History of the Video Game

Industry

Video games can be traced back to the 1950s and

1960s, when computer scientists began to try to

design simple games and simulations using

minicomputers. “Spacewar!”, one of the earliest

games to appear on a video display, was developed

by student enthusiasts at MIT in 1962 (Martin, 1981).

By the mid-1970s, the advent of low-cost

programmable microprocessors led to the first home

game console. During this era the arcade video games

were becoming more and more popular, such as

“Space Invaders” and “Pac-Man” (Alexander, 2019).

Moving forward to 1983, the U.S. gaming market was

on the verge of collapse due to the terrible game

quality and proliferation of homogenized games.

Such an incident prompted Japanese video game

industry to take over the market leading position

(Gallagher and Park, 2002). Nintendo released the

Nintendo Entertainment System in 1985, which gave

a huge boost to the video game industry at that time

(O'Donnell, 2011). During the late 1980s and early

1990s, the standardization and improvement of

personal computers further fuelled the growth of

video games. Furthermore, the intense competition

between Nintendo and Sega in the U.S. market during

this period also contributed to the development of the

game console industry. Into the early 1990s, the start

of Sony Play Station not only eroded Nintendo's

market share, but also kicked Sega out of the gaming

hardware market (Gavin, 2015). Following Sony's

entry into the console market was the Xbox from

Microsoft in the early 2000s and it was at this time

that the future “Big 3” competition of the game

console industry was established. However, the

biggest change in the game industry since 21

century

is the development and popularization of smart

phones and tablet computers. Gradually, mobile

games began to occupy a larger share of the market.

Besides, demographic structure of the industry is

different as well. Compared to the 3A games with

increasingly higher risk and cost, more and more

delicate and creative indie games came to the

attention of the public during this period (Richard

2017). In recent years, as mobile devices had become

much more powerful, mobile gaming is slowly

becoming a dominant force in the gaming industry,

with a staggering 107.3 billion dollars revenue from

app stores alone. Along with the rise of mobile games,

eSports industry had also come to the centre of the

stage. Nowadays, eSports attracts huge audiences all

around the world and rivals traditional sports in terms

of viewership and revenue. It is expected that eSports

industry is able to reach 5.4 billion dollars in revenue

by 2027 with 720 million viewers.

Overall, the video game industry today has gained

unprecedented growth and attention. However, a

growing saturation of the game content and

increasing competition in the industry keep testing the

practitioners. Additionally, more negative or

sensitive issues about the industry are brought under

the microscope by the general public, such as

cybersecurity and regulatory issues, microtransaction

systems with a gambling nature and the negative

effects of soft pornography along with violence on

minors.

2.2 Creativity and Management

Processes of the Gaming Industry

Technically, video games are software running on the

hardware. Therefore, for the creativity of the game

industry, it can refer to both innovation in software

and iteration in hardware. The term “innovation” or

“creativity” in this paper mainly refers to the

creativity related to gameplay and game content.

Compared to general commodities, video games

are a product with a relatively short lifespan.

Nevertheless, the process of development requires

quite large investment and time cost, which means

that, for a video game with a long development cycle

and large upfront investment, there is little room for

errors. The vast majority of single-player game sales

are concentrated in the first three months after release.

All these factors lead to a very competitive market,

MLSCM 2024 - International Conference on Modern Logistics and Supply Chain Management

178

making novelty, innovation, and originality

increasingly important during the game development

phase (Lê et al., 2013). However, the pursuit of

innovation in game development must be

accompanied by efficiency and financial prudence in

the process.

From this point of view, the process of developing

a game can be called an “innovation project”

(Zackariasson et al., 2006). When people talk about

projects, they usually consider them as the opposite

of creativity or flexibility, due to the fact that a project

needs to have a clear scope, a completion date, a

corresponding budget and clear requirements for the

final output (Nicholas, 2001). One of the advantages

of this management process is that it can be rigorously

planned and scheduled to enable projects to be

completed on time. In practice, some projects can

indeed be clearly defined and planned in advance, but

this is difficult for game development, especially for

large-scale game projects that aim for originality and

creativity. One of the great obstacles is that it is

almost impossible to come to an agreement in

advance for specific outcomes and dates to be

delivered. Therefore, in the process of game

development, in order to balance quality and

efficiency, the goals are often qualitative and short-

lived, and are gradually refined as the development

process proceeds. Similarly, for game companies, the

management process should also keep up with the

trends and timely make suitable adjustment.

3 CASE STUDY

3.1 Research Context

Ubisoft Entertainment SA is a video game developer

and publisher founded in 1986 and headquartered in

France. With nearly 30 studios around the world, it is

currently the second largest independent

development team in the world. Ubisoft used to be a

leader in the industry, with its strong innovation,

excellent artistry, and top-notch technology.

However, in recent years, Ubisoft has taken a

completely opposite path, turning from the “big

brother” to a controversial little brother, with projects

being axed, games being constantly postponed,

employees going on strike and reputation collapsing.

It seems that the once-venerable company has run out

of steam. The creativity dried up, the overall game

quality dropped, and the company is bloated and

inefficient. This section mainly focuses on how

certain management processes contributed to the

burst of creativity in project development during

Ubisoft's rising stage around 2015.

3.2 The Industry Leader

3.2.1 Project-led Organization

Ubisoft has many great game franchises which are

known for their great creativity, such as Assassin's

Creed, Rainbow Six, and Raging Rabbids. Take

Ubisoft's most widely recognized studio, Ubisoft

Montreal, for example, which employs over two

thousand people and is one of the largest game

development studios in the world. Many of Ubisoft's

flagship IPs come from the Montreal studio, such as

Prince of Persia, Rainbow Six, Far Cry and Assassin's

Creed. Like other organizations that have multiple

creative projects running in parallel, the studio fits the

description of a “project-led organization” (Hobday,

2000), with typically around 15 projects running

concurrently within the studio. Each project is

independent and managed in different phases. The

overall project leader has more autonomy but is still

under the supervision of the studio management team

as well as ad hoc supervision from the marketing and

innovation departments at headquarters.

In terms of the process, the advancement of a

project can be roughly divided into three stages:

initial conceptualization, establishment of the project,

and production, with repeated evaluation and

adjustment through internal project meetings along

with project team - senior management team meetings

interspersed between these three steps. In most cases,

the top management team has the final say. The

evaluation of the game's innovation and gameplay is

executed through an internal process. At the Montreal

studio, the overall development is managed by an

executive project manager, with a core team and a

playable production team (Cohendet and Simon,

2016). During the initial conceptualization phase, the

core team chooses to either breed a new IP or re-

create an existing one, based on market research,

technical capabilities, and advice from industry

experts; and then maintains an iterative development

spiral during the pre-conceptualization phase, testing

and refining the team's ideas. Once the project team

believes the idea is mature enough, coordination

between the development team, the studio, and the

headquarters establishes the direction of the entire

development. After the first phase, the project team

will present the mature idea and the prospects of the

game concept in a kick-off meeting, which also marks

the start of official pre-production phase. In addition

to presenting conceptual content, this meeting also

allows senior management to understand the game's

market position and potential, planning the launch of

the final product. This project-led creative process

Study on the Relationship Between Creativity of Video Games Development and Rigid Management Process

179

allows the project team to produce a new game in a

relatively fixed way which is quite “cookie-cutter,”

while providing relatively greater flexibility within

such a fixed framework.

3.2.2 Technological Innovation

Although the emphasis of this article is not on the

innovation of technological in the gaming industry, it

can in turn drive breakthroughs in game content.

There are two general sources of technological

innovation, the first being the release of new game

consoles; the second being the development of new

game engines or improvements to existing game

engines.

For new console releases, Ubisoft have a

department dedicated to predicting and interfacing

with new technologies. This department will predict

what aspects of the game will be improved by the new

console, such as the graphic expressiveness or the

movement verisimilitude. According to these pre-

investigations, Ubisoft is able to deploy in advance to

start adapting to the corresponding technological

changes and come up with new ideas related to

gameplay and game design.

Generally speaking, the emergence of new

technologies provides the inspiration and foundation

for new gameplay. Having such a process in place

allows the company to make more systematic and

comprehensive assessments of gameplay innovations

and potentials, meanwhile speeding up the response

time. More importantly, developers actually have a

greater voice during this process. Part of the reason

why Ubisoft places so much emphasis on this process

is that, for the company, the first step in the

conceptualization phase of a game's development is

to try to find the technological breakthroughs that will

trigger a creative spark. Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell,

for example, is a famous example of this concept,

where Ubisoft utilized advances in its own engine to

bring new inspiration and development direction to

game design.

3.2.3 The Hidden Structure of Creativity

Within an organization, members more or less have

the chance to meet or communicate in a looser and

relaxed way. Admittedly, a large part of the content

of these relatively informal communications is not

aligned with the company's goals or strategies.

However, it is often in these informal communication

opportunities and spaces that members of the

organization are able to boldly build hypotheses,

exchange ideas face-to-face and actively explore in a

relaxed environment. Such an approach can be seen

as a place for knowledge exchange and creativity

outside the corporate system, one hidden structure for

innovation.

Taking Ubisoft Singapore studio as an example,

they have deliberately cultivated a culture where

hobby clubs are an integral part of the studio. These

clubs operate organically during off-hours, providing

opportunities for employees to get together and try to

maximize the advantage of invisible creativity

structure. At Ubisoft Singapore, the company has

more than 30 active clubs covering a wide range of

activities, from running clubs, to fight clubs, to food

clubs and even more. In this way, the Singapore

studio hopes to help them create a harmonious

atmosphere in the office. According to one of the

studio's writers, who is responsible for designing the

game's story flow, “A lot of the dialog and design

needs to take place in a relaxed and comfortable space.

By nature, game development is a very collaborative

space. Out of necessity, every developer has to

constantly collaborate with each other.” Attempting

to build open communication spaces within the

company in an organized manner has both enhanced

collaboration and the exchange of ideas between

employees, as well as improved the working

environment. Such places allow employees to step

out of their everyday roles and try out completely

different roles and ways of interacting with a more

open and inclusive mindset. Besides, because the club

includes director-level employees, participants have a

real opportunity to learn from more experienced

industry veterans.

In addition to this, Ubisoft encourages having

multiple studios from different parts of the world to

collaborate on one project to increase the diversity

and richness of ideas. These worldwide exchanges

empower game development with a broader range of

thinking and creativity, bringing a better chance of

resonating with players around the world.

Such invisible open-innovation spaces, outside of

the relatively more serious day-to-day organizational

structure of a company, create a series of informal

interactions that provide a diverse and more vibrant

framework for the process of discovering new ideas.

4 PROBLEM OBSERVATIONS

4.1 The Fall of Ubisoft

According to Ubisoft's 2023 earnings report, revenue

fell 56% year-on-year in the fourth quarter of 2022,

while the net loss for the whole year of 2022 even

exceeded $538 million, far exceeding the company's

MLSCM 2024 - International Conference on Modern Logistics and Supply Chain Management

180

loss expectations. The former gaming giant has fallen

into deep water in recent years, and the company's

stock price also fell to a seven-year low in 2023. The

company's management had recognized the

seriousness of the problem. CEO Yves Guillemot

once sent an internal email to all employees asking

them to devote themselves to helping Ubisoft get

back on track. However, the email was seen by many

employees as an attempt to shirk their

responsibilities, with many saying that it was an

attempt to pave the way for mass layoffs and

increased workloads. As employees reacted more

aggressively, it even sparked a strike at the Paris

studio. This section focuses on what kinds of

management process issues have emerged in the

course of the company's continuous growth and

changes in the industry as well as consumer groups,

which set the stage for their current internal and

external troubles.

4.2 Problem Focus

4.2.1 Large Scale and Low Productivity

Since 2020, Ubisoft's production capacity has been

declining year after year. In 2019, the company

launched about 10 new games, in 2020 there were 7,

and in 2022, the number of games released for the

year was reduced to 4, with the overall quality being

even more unsatisfactory. Nonetheless, along with

this decrease in efficiency, the company size just kept

growing. Ubisoft's ongoing strategy of globalization

led them to have 45 studios in close to 30 countries at

one point. Such a strategy did give them a diversity of

backgrounds and ideas, but the company's volume got

out of control. Even after the structural reorganization

and layoff fiasco of 2023, the company's total

headcount still stands at about 19,000. By contrast,

the entire Activision Blizzard workforce is only

13,000, but the company's market capitalization is

four times that of Ubisoft.

4.2.2 Triple Mistakes of Game Development

Today's Ubisoft has three serious problems in game

development that make them mediocre in terms of

gameplay, aesthetics, and technical aspects. The first

is the serious homogenization of their productions.

Ubisoft, as both a developer and publisher, has had a

number of distinctive IPs of all shapes and sizes, yet

nowadays, every Ubisoft game feels like deja vu. This

sense doesn't just appear on the surface, it has even

permeated the core of every Ubisoft game. The

constant replication of existing systems or the

excessive reuse of RGB gameplay elements and

open-world design features force players to expect

nothing more from a Ubisoft game when it comes to

innovation.

The second issue is the significant drop in

gameplay experience. Due to the repetitive and

formulaic design of the work and the lack of creativity,

the playing experience tends to be uninspiring as well.

Moreover, today's Ubisoft games often lack excellent

directors and scripts during the development process,

making it difficult for players to empathize with a

formulaic world which also lacks the sense of

immersion and realism.

The third problem lies in Ubisoft's current

operating model - a continuing operation model.

There is nothing wrong with the mode itself which

can be applied to both online games and single-player

games. Whereas the issue is that Ubisoft is relatively

inexperienced in this type of operation. They are good

at running game communities, which in a way enables

their big Ips to collect a large number of fans in a

relatively stable manner. However, Ubisoft is terrible

at listening to players' suggestions, seldom making

changes that meet players' wishes. The failure of

Rainbow Six's eSports is the embodiment of such a

drawback. Ubisoft as a company without long-term

operational experience insist to develop service-

oriented games and continuing operation, which is

obviously not a wise decision.

Until the company's financial reports have

become more and more unimpressive in recent years,

Ubisoft was dragging its feet on all sorts of issues,

steadfastly following through with its own boring

production models, acting like a factory that delivers

delicate yet frowned canned goods to the marketplace.

4.3 Sources Analysis

4.3.1 Subcontracting

As studios spread around the world, Ubisoft gradually

developed a special “subcontracting” model. In other

words, the same game project was assigned to

multiple studios for joint development, with artwork,

programming, scripts, and other types of work

subdivided and assigned to multiple studios for

completion. However, Ubisoft set up a separate

“Editorial Committee” to oversee the development

process of a game and make key decisions about the

whole project. Under this model, Ubisoft was able to

accelerate the development process and make the best

use of their company's size (before it became

overstuffed). This management process meant that

the power of life and death for each game was in the

Study on the Relationship Between Creativity of Video Games Development and Rigid Management Process

181

hands of a few people, while individual inspiration

and creativity are always limited, as are one's

viewpoints and perspectives. In fact, individuals at

the bottom of the hierarchy are capable of making

decisions that have a significant impact on company

performance in knowledge work (Drucker, 1967).

Moreover, excessive interference from the top is one

of the major reasons why some games are difficult to

produce. Sometimes this intervention was about

gameplay changes, and other times it was pressure on

the development team to keep the development

process on schedule.

In the run-up to 2020, Ubisoft was repeatedly

confronted with the conflicting issues of efficiency

and creativity, and their choice was to err on the side

of capacity. The subcontracted development model

ensures a high standard of efficiency, and a

development process that pushes multiple studios

together has led to a reduction in development time.

Along with the development process, the cost of

developing the game has been reduced as well.

Ubisoft prefers to minimize the cost of the

development process compared to the cost of

marketing and distribution, which is achieved by

repeatedly utilizing similar game models and game

materials to create a so-called “canned” production

line.

In 2020, with a series of scandals such as

“fraternity culture” and “workplace discrimination”

coming to light, Ubisoft's senior management

underwent a major bloodbath, including the dismissal

of some senior members who had been leading the

development decisions. The development team

finally began to break free of the editorial team's

authoritarian rule. However, the vacancy of the

position of development coordinator left the project

without the leadership of the top management.

Ubisoft did not see a surge in the quality of its games,

and its production capacity was also declining until

the beginning of 2023.

4.3.2 The Split between Technology and

Creativity

In general, the final video game product is the result

of a trade-off between creative design, technological

constraints, and platform limitations (Alves et al.,

2007). As mentioned earlier, Ubisoft has experienced

management turmoil in recent years under the

umbrella of a subcontracted development process.

For development teams, distrust spread within the

team if development members feel that management

lacks the technical knowledge to make practical

decisions (Murphy-Hill et al., 2014). Indeed, it is the

case that the turbulence of the co-ordinated project

developers makes it difficult for the management to

make a rational assessment and decision on the

overall development work. Meanwhile, it is more

difficult to coordinate the different work divisions

within the project, one of the specific manifestations

of which is the conflict between game designers and

programmers - the split between creativity and

technology. Creative ideas in game design are

sometimes perceived by programmers as redundant

and difficult to implement features. The designers

may consider it as a creative idea that improves the

gameplay and facilitates the player. However, on the

one hand, there is no such evaluation mechanism. On

the other hand, most programmers have defaulted to

Ubisoft's formulaic design, and no one is willing to be

the one to initiate change. This vicious cycle not only

drained inspiration and creativity from game

development, but also had a negative impact on the

team's internal communication and atmosphere.

Conflicts between designers and programmers,

between art and gameplay, and between different

studios, all of which increase the difficulty of

development.

4.3.3 Informal Community Maintenance

From a more intuitive point of view, the interaction

of the informal community within the company is

bound to be affected to a greater extent by the

increasing size of the company and the proliferation

of internal and external troubles. The specific process

of this interaction explains how creativity is inhibited:

members of informal organizations, who are also

members of the development team of a particular

project within the company system, have a dual role

(Cohendet and Simon, 2007), i.e., as a member of a

particular project and as a member of a particular

informal community. This dual identity gives

members the opportunity to acquire and exchange

knowledge in both directions, allowing an innovative

idea to flow into the wider organization of the

company and to be refined in this circulation. For the

company, it also fosters interaction between different

communities and strengthens the company's common

culture. Gradually, this interaction brings closer the

cultural distance between different project teams

within the company (Nooteboom, 1999). This

increasingly rational ability to understand each other

indirectly stimulates the creativity of team members.

As Nooteboom points out, a lack of communication

between different project teams within a company, or

little gap in perception between them, diminishes a

company's ability to innovate. For Ubisoft, the effort

MLSCM 2024 - International Conference on Modern Logistics and Supply Chain Management

182

to maintain an informal organization within the

company could have made a big difference in the way

development projects were managed, making the

process more flexible and the atmosphere more

harmonious, and giving the teams the ability to

“renew and improve” themselves. However, as the

company's problems mounted, this kind of

communication became a catalyst that accelerated the

spread of negative energy, with positive

communication turning into complaints about

executives or worries about one's career prospects.

4.4 The Future Work

As time moves into 2024, it is clear that Ubisoft has

realized the severity of the problems, and that they are

not helpless in the face of their predicament.

Accelerating multi-platform layout, adjusting overall

development strategy, and optimizing organizational

structure all seem to be good choices for its future at

this point. Nevertheless, how to re-ignite the

company's creativity is a much knottier goal. The

restoration of organizational creativity is difficult to

achieve through a smooth and continuous adjustment

mechanism (Cohendet and Simon, 2016). What is

needed is most likely the introduction and

establishment of new things in the organization by

breaking existing rules and roles, rearranging some of

the interaction processes, making constant

adjustments to the organizational structure, and

listening more to the employees as well as to the

players. What also needs to be built together is

Ubisoft's long-lost reputation as a gaming company

among the community. How to restore the balance

between efficiency and creativity, flexibility will be

the ultimate proposition on Ubisoft's road back.

5 CONCLUSIONS

Ubisoft was the leader of the video game industry, yet

as time went on, however, they didn't capitalize on

their size and influence to make more attempts and

breakthroughs. Instead, they chose to stay within the

comfort zone, replicating development formulas,

which has turned them into a follower of the crowd,

losing creativity and competitive edge in the

industry's rapid advancement. Unfortunately, the

rigid management system and chaotic organizational

structure accelerate the process of degeneration.

Analysis from three perspectives - changes in the

game development process, the alignment between

technology and creativity, and the maintenance of

informal organizations - reveals that the loss of

creativity and defects of the management process is a

vicious circle. The negligence of trivial problems,

lack of listening to the genuine ideas from team

members are also part of the circle. In this context,

analysing the relationship between management

processes and creativity along with the mechanisms

that influence them is of greater academic and

practical significance. Hopefully, in future research, a

horizontal comparison of the management structure

characteristics from different game companies is able

to bring a greater comprehensiveness and a stronger

reference to this study as well.

REFERENCES

Alexander, S., 2019. They Create Worlds: The Story of the

People and Companies That Shaped the Video Game

Industry. Vol. I: 1971-1982. CRC Press. pp. 119-20,

188-91.

Alves, C., Ramalho, G., Damasceno, A., 2007. Challenges

in Requirements Engineering for Mobile Games

Development: The Meantime Case Study. In 15th IEEE

International Requirements Engineering Conference.

pp. 275-280.

Cohendet, P., Simon, L., 2007. Playing across the

Playground: Paradoxes of Knowledge Creation in the

Videogame Firm Journal of Organizational Behavior

28, 587–605.

Cohendet, P., Simon, L., 2016. Always Playable:

Recombining Routines for Creative Efficiency at

Ubisoft Montreal’s Video Game Studio. Organization

Science 27(3), 614-632.

DeFillippi, R., Arthur, M., 1998. Paradox in project-based

enterprise: The case of film-making. California

Management Review 40, 125–139.

Drucker, P., 1967. The effective executive. New York:

Harper Collins Books.

Gallagher, S., Ho Park, S., 2002. Innovation and

competition in standard-based industries: a historical

analysis of the US home video game market. IEEE

Transactions on Engineering Management 49(1), 67-

82.

Gavin, G., 2015. The art and legacy of the '90s console war.

Retrieved on August 20, 2024. Retrieved from

https://venturebeat.com/games/the-art-and-legacy-of-

the-90s-console-war/.

Hobday, M., 2000, The project-based organisation: An

ideal form for managing complex products and systems?

Res. Policy. 29(7), 871–893.

Lampel, J., Lant, T., Shamsie, J., 2000. Balancing act:

Learning from organizing practices in cultural

industries. Organization Science 11, 263–269.

Lê, P., Masse, D., Paris, T., 2013. Technological Change at

the Heart of the Creative Process: Insights from the

Videogame Industry. International Journal of Arts

Management 15(2).

Study on the Relationship Between Creativity of Video Games Development and Rigid Management Process

183

Martin, G., 1981. The origin of Spacewar. Creative

Computing 6(8), 56–67.

Murphy-Hill, E., Zimmermann, T., Nagappan, N., 2014.

Cowboys, ankle sprains, and keepers of quality: How is

video game development different from software

development? In Proceedings of the 36th international

conference on software engineering.

Nicholas, J., 2001. Project management for business and

technology: Principles and practice, 2

edition.

Nooteboom, B., 1999. Innovation, learning and industrial

organisation. Cambridge Journal of Economics 23,

127-150.

O’Donnell, C., 2011. The Nintendo Entertainment System

and the 10NES Chip: Carving the Video Game Industry

in Silicon. Games and Culture 6(1), 83-100.

Richard, C., 2017. Is indie gaming the future? TechRadar.

p. 1. Retrieved on August 20, 2024. Retrieved from

https://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/is-indie-

gaming-the-future-716500.

Zackariasson, P., Walfisz, M., Wilson, T., 2006.

Management of Creativity in Video Game

Development. Services Marketing Quarterly, 27: 4, 73-

97.

MLSCM 2024 - International Conference on Modern Logistics and Supply Chain Management

184