FG: And this is because, as the videogames business has grown, the stakes have been raised?

John: The stakes are so high in development nowadays that the publisher needs to feel comfortable that they are likely to get a return on their money. A lot of publishers believe the best way this can be achieved is by controlling what kind of games their company are going to put out, so that it can be pigeonholed more easily into a certain market.

Sensible, however, have always been like the software equivalent of a very successful indie band. We have produced many games in the past, all original, some off the wall, some straight, and some in between. We thought we could adopt the same approach in more recent years. But what we didn't realise was that because we were getting a lot more money as advances (and our costs were a lot bigger too) somehow our creative approach was meant to adapt to this new business model.

FG: And that isn't the Sensible way of doing things?

John: None of this endless system of predictions of exactly what is going to be in the game and how long it's going to take was ever a big deal eight years ago. We could sign up a game from a design written up in biro on two bits of A4 paper. But slowly we've begun to realise that such an organic approach to creativity - placing a lot of trust in the abilities of the people designing and controlling the game - was not to the liking of the new corporate machines we were now all working for or with.

Seven years ago everyone would have just said, "Okay, great. Let's put it out" to a new Sensible game, whether it was 2D Football or Sex and Drugs they would have trusted us. But now, marketing and sales people do market research, look at what is currently in fashion, and then put doubts in everyone's minds as to whether an alternative approach is such a good idea. Just because it's not similar to any of the big games out at the moment, to them it appears to be a bit of a risk.