This is one reason why "follow your passion" is a bad career strategy.
It's not unique to this industry. Look at all the folks who get PhDs and waste their 30's doing low paid postdocs ($50K is higher end).
> Look at all the folks who get PhDs and waste their 30's doing low paid postdocs ($50K is higher end).
Research is different. You are certainly losing out on income, however in my experience you have an immense amount of ownership and autonomy over the project. If you get the boot you can take your project with you. You can publish your code as free software or open source and your papers on open access pre-print services. Academic researchers are often far less alienated from their labor than video game engineers.
Consider two orthogonal vectors: one is income earned and the other is your accomplishments. Ideally you want to maximize both, but failing that different people express different priorities over which one to maximize in a career.
It's heartbreaking the first time I hear it. After the 100th time, the sentiment transforms to "Why did you allow yourself in this predicament?" And the answer is always "Passion".
This story has been repeated over and over for the last 15 years. You can take this exact story to aspiring game developers and they'll say "I don't care. It's not about the money. I just want to make games. Even if I play a small role in the project I'll be satisfied"
>You are certainly losing out on income, however in my experience have an immense amount of ownership and autonomy over the project.
Many postdocs don't. They do the bidding of some faculty member.
Many faculty members don't. Sure, on paper they do. But they'll all tell you about the work they cannot pursue because they can't get grant money for it.
>If you get the boot you can take your project with you.
Not true for some postdoc work.
>You can publish code as free software or open source and your papers on open access pre-print services.
Not true as a post doc. My advisor certainly forbade it.
>Consider two orthogonal vectors: one is income earned and the other is your accomplishments. Ideally you want to maximize both, but failing that, different personalities often express different priorities over which one to maximize in a career.
I completely agree with this, which is why I'm not sympathetic to the game developer, or with postdocs who regret spending so long in academia. They picked their priorities - it was not imposed on to them. And for many, later in their life, they feel they picked the "wrong" priorities.
I am sympathetic to them as we have all made bad decisions. I would argue that a neccessary pre-condition to "following your passion" is protecting that passion and pursuing a longterm strategy which allows you to develop that passion and maintain ownership over your work. Chasing passion is not an reason for failing to plan or for allowing others to walk all over you. Software engineers on the whole have sufficient power to not be at the mercy of bosses if they have the will to stand up for themselves. They owe it to themselves and to their limited lifespan to do so.
Edit: I think we both are saying that, to the degree possible, people have a responsibility to themselves to not allow themselves to be exploited.
That, right there, is exactly what im feeling currently.
It all started as a hobby some years ago and I got an opportunity to turn it into a career, so I did. I dont regret that time because I met some pretty amazing people and learned a TON about so many fascinating things. But I finally got fed up last year and left to do some freelancing work while I performed a 'Career-Shift'.
Unfortunately, what I have come to realize is that its pretty difficult to switch from being a contract developer for 10 or so years. I dont know for sure, but I think, because I have the 'Jack of all trades, master of none' resume. It's highly demotivating.
What should have stayed a hobby became a career, and now feel scorned because of it.
I think this statement sums it up.
After a while, I figured out that for most jobs, following passion is too much of a risk. Even if it is aligned with my passions, any minor change (e.g. management decision) can make it a chore or much worse. It will never really be according to my vision.
So I switched to a boring job but with good work-life balance. This gives me free time to pursue my passions. Now I'll grant some passions are demanding enough that you can't reasonably do it in your free time (e.g. certain types of academic research). Fortunately, the solution is to have multiple passions. Even if I have all the time in the world, it is not enough to pursue all my passions anyway. It's OK to pare it down to what is feasible, and it doesn't make me any less happy.
Are you getting no offers, or just no offers that pay well enough?
I have trouble believing that noone would want to hire you if you're good and can show that you've built nontrivial stuff.
None of that is worth the lowered income.
It's hard to find a GDC talk on Youtube where the creator of a game doesn't get teared up talking about the despair and elation they felt slaving over their game for four years. Try this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wOlcB-JxkFw
I also firmly believe there are games that won't be forgotten in a few decades.
1. Watch someone work hard on a project they care about for months or years. It could be software, a quilt or a carpentry project.
2. Find a legal way to destroy it in front of them.
3. Say "Come on its just X not the Sistine Chapel."
4. Record their reaction and report back.
It's not as if they found a legal way to destroy it after the work had started. That legal way has always existed. How one can enter a profession where you're paid to make art and not know the rules is mind boggling. I know lots of famous music artists who've felt exploited, but those contracts are likely a lot more complicated than what these developers deal with.
If you're a carpenter, and I hire you to build something, and you don't know that I can stop the project at any point and destroy it, you've got serious issues. Ask any carpenter.
If Michelangelo was paid to produce a masterpiece, I'm sure he knew he didn't own the work. I should probably look up famous artists like him and read up to see if this was even unusual: Getting paid to make something that would be destroyed by the owner.
Its obviously not a 1:1 comparison, but the emotions and feelings are the same is what im getting at ;-)
I'd advise against making someone else rich, at your own expense.
Been there, been done like that.
Following your passion is fine.
Complaining about low pay because you are following your passion is not. If they're complaining, they care about more than their passions, and they (not their employers) are responsible for satisfying their needs.
You can get lucky and follow your passion as well as take care of material needs, but those are the exceptions. Not the norm.
If there were not aligned, then we should strive to change the market and society to make them align. Without a proper incentive mechanism, no innovation can be done optimally.
I would beg to differ. The aligned ones are the exceptions.
Unless your passion is to make money, that is.
The whole point is that if your passion is something other than to get rich, you are more inclined than the average person to take lower pay to pursue your passions.
"Wow, it's awesome employer X is willing to pay me to do passion Y. I never thought I could make a living doing this!"
"Those who use their skills to do boring work (code/CAD monkey) to make more money are sellouts!"
Most startups are in it for the money. As pg himself wrote: It's not at all unusual in the early phases for a startup to completely change direction because they didn't find a market for their "passion". The goal is to get rich, not to solve business problem Z.
>Without a proper incentive mechanism, no innovation can be done optimally.
I agree with the caveat that the incentive need not be "get rich". Making a lot of money often lowers innovation by constraining it.
I am saying rich being above average and can secure a above average starting point for offspring. I do not think rich should be "rich enough to be considered privileged".
Greed and desire for the pot of gold are illusions.
If salary were a function of social value added why is the Pepsi CEO so well paid? So many industries just appropriate wealth from real work.
If people don't yield to the flawed system I say hats off to them.
It's up to them to decide. I, for one, have seen far too many people go the route of academia, stick to it, and then regret it because they either didn't get a tenure track position, or because they were so old when they got one.
It depends on the discipline. Engineering/CS is soft on academics. When I was doing my PhD, it was not unusual for a graduate to get a TT position without doing a postdoc. But if you're in the sciences or math: Good luck.
You are responsible for taking care of your needs. If all you care about is research, and not enough money to pay for your kids' college (the situation of a number of career post docs I know), then I'm the last one to tell you to reconsider.
This is why a system that fails to associate value added with reward gained is so utterly damaging.
Plus, if we're talking about games, you have the money to pay people for quality art, sound, etc. So when you are ready to make that step, you can really give it some polish.
If someone wants to keep that up with postdocs, more power to them. I just observe that there are a lot more postdocs who regret their journey than those who stopped at PhD.
That said, I do enjoy doing research. It's frustrating working with researchers sometimes though. :P Sure, everyone push to master without testing, no problem! I'll just spend my afternoon making things compile again..
Start school at 7;
Start university at 19;
Start PhD at 25 [4-year bachelors + 2-year masters] if you can do that immediately after masters, or 26;
Finish PhD at 28, or 29 (if it's a 3-year PhD, otherwise older);
Finish first post-doc at 31, second one at 33/34.
By mid-30s you are just starting your tenure-track (assuming you get some semi-permanent position at a university or research institute)
I'm currently doing a PhD [quantum chemistry] and this is basically my expectation for the future.
Most companies today seem to only care about being the largest in the industry. Because, I'm guessing shareholders or greed or something, I dont know for sure. It's almost impossible to find a company that wants to just stay within their means. Grow to the optimal size you can manage and coast. I assume its because those kind of companies would get run over by their competition if they didnt keep growing, but im not sure.
I used to aspire to have a super successful and huge game company. But after seeing all the insider crap that goes into game development, I think I'll be happiest with just doing my own thing and having trusted colleagues that will come in on projects to help out.
This is why I still play many older AAA games, yet only a few current AAA games, though my machine has enough HP for any current title. Yet current indie games often have this extra, and are on my menu.
You can run a game factory like this, but this inflates the product line on the long run. Only managers will stay, and ideas will not blossom, only the management will execute the same reciepes over and over, and eventually customers will not come without insane sales campaigns.
"Many older AAA games yet only a few current AAA games" I suspect is more due to rose-tinted glasses and survivor bias. There was plenty of crap back then, and plenty of greatness today.
The other comparison with Hollywood is the unrelenting sequelitis. It's even reached the point now where game developers are planning trilogies from the start, like StarCraft II and Medieval Total War: Warhammer.
There is no way a game like the first Portal could have been designed by a game designer, it started as a research project by a developer. Then there are games that do very innovative with the art blending it seamlessly into the design in unconventional ways, like Antechamber. I think there are plenty examples of games that buck the mold too hard for a conventional designer to have been able to make them.
My favorite example is Minecraft and its procedurally generated infinite world, much of the art is in algorithms that create the biomes. Cresting the top of a mountain to see the scenery on the other side for the first time is so simple to do and easy to enjoy in this game. The programmer had to be the designer and the artist to pull this off. I know Notch worked with others but this one facet had to be singular or iterative, not communicated from someone seperate after "designing". This was communicated in code and programmers and artist saw what existed and tried to build something and sharing. There is no good way for a conventional designer to convey the details of an algorithm to build forests and cave systems. It is not a fundamentally unsolvable problem, it is just presently unsolved in my experience.
Perhaps, for certain types of games. But for many types of games there's this subtle overlap between design and programming that defines how the game "feels" to play.
eg. How do digital/analog sampled inputs exactly map to character movement and camera control.
This is an area where having a small core group that understands the technology at play but also has a handle on the design side of how to implement for "fun" can be a huge difference maker.
From a high level design point of view, most action "platform" games have basically the same controls. But anyone who has played, say, Nintendo's Mario games versus most other platform games realizes there is some special sauce in the "feel" of the character movement that is equal parts design and programming/low-level-implementation that wouldn't get conveyed properly in a higher level outsource-ready design document.
If I want to be told stories I usually prefer books, films. (Though I liked Baldur's Gate for eg. which is an opposite of what I usually prefer)
Many game makers mistakenly conflate any kind of success with an endorsement of their game creation skills and assume it will transfer. If the next product doesn't hit the necessary behavioral hooks, it's going to fail, no matter how well your first or main product was received.
Just as in movies and music, the big players rehash the same stuff over and over again because it sells. The dividends from these formulaic products pay for the small fraction of experimental/non-formulaic ("soulful") projects, which typically lose money.
A few weeks ago, I started another new game of Carrier Command.
It's still the same game it was more than 25 years ago when I first started playing but I'm not the same gamer that I used to be so this play-through is much different.
I can't imagine that most of today's AAA titles will still be enjoyable in 25 years. Madden or NBA 2K17 aren't going to have people re-playing them. The Fallout Series probably will but most won't. I'm going to be an old guy again but these games don't feel like someone poured their heart and soul into them the way the old ones did.
Take a look at the release list for the last year, it's sequel sequel sequel.
Once in a blue moon a new IP comes, and people drop their pants like it's the second coming, forgetting that this is how the games industry used to be.
A lot of the time it just really depends on the motivation behind the director. Keep in mind that some of Nintendo's most successful games were from simple observations on the parts of their creator, like Miyamoto watching ants while he was gardening and coming up with the basic concept for Pikmin. Most yearly release games will suffer just because they are yearly release games. Same with yearly release movies.
The difference might be that the contractors in the film and TV industry are all union.
There was a distinct jump in professionalism (and acknowledgement of safety) when I started working union shoots vs non-union.
I'm sympathetic to the game developers, but unionization has been pretty strong eroded outside of traditionally hazardous occupations.
This is even more pronounced in the UK where permanent employee pay is very low, compared to contractor pay. Generally the best engineers all end up becoming either contractors or go into finance where they can get paid well. And unfortunately the engineers who could never get employed as a perm employee also become contractors.
And even if you managed to get in somewhere I imagine you'd be found out and binned pretty quickly.
edit: "typical" for a mid-to-senior level programmer contractor. A "contractor" doing QC in games will not take anywhere near as much.
Outside London as a senior dev you might expect £45k full-time + pension + benefits.
So definitely not at least 2x.
45 weeks is kinda the rule of thumb of contractors, as you don't get paid hols or sick days.
100k is definitely not twice what you get as a permie in London.
There are a lot of reasons why employers hire contractors, some more valid than others.
In my limited experience, it's rarely worth it, mostly because the relevant processes are never in place to ensure that loads of knowledge doesn't walk away with the contractor at the end of the contract
edit:
Should clarify that I'm in the UK.
Could you elaborate on that, please? Thanks in advance!
Their contracts have an expiration so they're easier to get rid of on short notice.
Also they are treated as capital expenditure versus operational expenditure. And I believe that you can do some accounting that is beneficial tax wise to a company.
This is a UK perspective.
Basically some big companies charge their divisions fees for upkeep of facilities, paying the finance team salaries, etc based on the number of employees in the division.
So if you can have ten employees you are only on the hook for $1M/year in corp fees even though you actually have three "consultants" sharing desks with every employee for years-at-a-time. If you added the consultants to the employee roles then you would become a 50 person division, owing $5M/year to the home office.
---
The CAPEX vs OPEX thing is a big driver too, of course, but there are definitely ways to classify employees, at least partially, as capex.
It's why you can make an exempt employee fill out a timesheet to charge back projects which you have put into the capex group.
A few jobs ago my group was told to find 80% capex or find new jobs. Most fridays were spent negotiating with project managers in tasks-for-hours swaps.
On demand skills
higher skillset
misallocation of internal resources
internal politics
hanging on to yearly budgets
I could probably think of a few more
Some of the above are perceived by PHBs types as there is always a finite pool of people with the skillset that is needed for the job at the skill level required etc...
> The guy poured his heart and soul into the project and was vested way beyond a paycheck
... so it's kinda sad when productivity isn't the reason.
Yeah, how dare they...
People are more specialized and interchangeable. Outsourcing the work to where it can be done best for the best price makes sense. We would have done it that way in the '90s, if it would have worked. Now it does.
I know many developers in gaming and I constantly tell them to leave the industry for anything else. But they rarely do. And over time I see them get more run down and despondent. I actually see them age over a short period time. It's some sort of occupational Stockholm Syndrome.
The proper way to work in the game industry is to make your cash in another industry and then start your own game studio.
But I was not a big fan of many people above us though. The actual decision makers that don't really know what they are talking about. They are great talkers, sometimes even motivational, but know nothing about what devs need to be successful and productive. And to a point don't care.
That's why you don't do that unless you own the business or shares of that business. Stick to what you're were hired for, don't be over invested, don't put on extra hours of work thinking you'll be rewarded somehow. I'm pretty sure this guys is burned out now. There is no such thing as being a "loyal employee" when your boss isn't paid to be loyal to you. That's business not some social club.
The medium-sized family company I work for was just purchased by another, multi-billion dollar company. After the post-acquisition stuff calms down, I'll be having that discussion with them. Until then, any work I do on the projects are void of the personal passion and extra time I put into developing and researching the projects, as much as I am able.
In every industry, everywhere, employees are an expense.
To maximize profits, expenses must be cut.
Maximizing profits is currently the goal of our society, and we seem hell bent on doing everything we can to achieve that goal.
Game industry has ridiculous turnover, for developers it is something like five years and you are likely to be out.
I just wonder if the 20something who dream of stock options and fame, of the game developers who dreamt of doing this since they were children, just haven't reached a point where the disappointment has hit. That, or internalized so strongly that they get promoted and catapulted up the chain. Workaholism, or 'passion' as some call it, can get noticed by the brass and now the passionate people are handed whips.
Age makes you more rational and common sense makes you see exploitation when faced with it.
But boy, IT folks seem to be the LAST to see it. Why is that? It's not like it's the only profession in the world where people can really enjoy what they do.