Hacker News Reader

Comment by eksemplar | Hacker News Reader

I never understood why people went into the gaming industry unless it was in a position where they did decision making and got credit.

Growing up in the 80/90is I remember thinking a place like Bioware or Black Isle/Troika would've been cool places to work, but as I reached adulthood and understood what went into working those places, the dream quickly faded.

Imagine having to work long hours at shit pay, to design/build some loot crate system. Especially when your skill set is in high-demand and you could've gone into something like healthcare IT, where you could be improving people's lives, at 37-45 hours a week at four times the pay.

I really don't mean to be rude, I just can't fathom the motivation you would have to work some anonymous job in the video gaming industry.

View on HN

HN cracks me up sometimes. Compare the derision and skepticism hurled at would-be video game developers to the praise people working countless hours on pointless "portfolio side projects" on github or whatever get, just for a minor boost in the grueling interview process or because they're so passionate about it or whatever.

At least these people (who are certainly being exploited, often in ways that violate labor laws) are getting some real work experience while they're at it.

> Compare the derision and skepticism hurled at would-be video game developers to the praise people working countless hours on pointless "portfolio side projects" on github or whatever get

Ok: one is fun, ~100h spread out over any period you want (e.g. a year: 2h per weekend), completely 100% beholden only to yourself, no strings attached. The other... well, I’ve never worked there, but I’ll quote someone who seems to know: “certainly being exploited, often in ways that violate labor laws.”

Are you honestly comparing what people are describing here to side projects? honestly: what side project have you ever worked on that treated you that way?

The amusement is from the comparison to the use of side projects as a proxy/signal for "passion" as part of the job application process and resume support, not side projects in general.

Of course more generally the exploitation of open source work by commercial entities is also ignored in this context, which is also amusing. The number of side-projects that are used for free by commercial entities profiting off them dwarfs the number used to generate income by consulting or as a business. But that's just fine because "open source."

You do have a point that they're getting real work experience. But that's where the similarities end. I've never heard stories about health problems, stress, and burnout from side projects. I'm sure it probably happens to some people, but it's almost certainly nowhere near the same rate that it sounds like it happens in the game industry.

Well, one's a demanding job, the other is some Saturday fun working on a project of your choice until you lose interest.

Perhaps that wouldn't be amusing to you once you realize that HN isn't a hive mind and there is a broad spectrum of what people think, believe or aspire to. For example, those who are unemployed or seeking to improve their job prospects or wanting to work on specific skillets may invest their time in "portfolio side projects", but those who are employed and feel overworked may complain about the Stockholm syndrome aspect of some software sweatshops.

If you just do side projects because you think it will help your portfolio you shouldn't work on side projects. I work on my side projects because I find it fun to do, the experience I get from that, like any experience, helps me in my day to day job.

I am fine with you cracking up over 'normal programmers' like me vs would-be video game developers I get in at 8:45 and leave at 17:10, I go swimming with my baby daughter once a week from 9:00 to 10:00 and I work from home 2 days a week without a single minute in overtime.

If you are out there doing 80-100 hour workweeks (as described in the article) you are an idiot. I get it when there are no jobs in your industry and too many candidates (psychology here in the Netherlands), but if you can program for games you can program applications with minimal self-training and start working normal hours and working on your life. So if you can program and you choose to work like described in the article you are an idiot.

Nobody gets health problems from working on side projects, that's a non argument.

Plenty of people get burnt out from side projects that turn out to be bigger than they had the capacity for.

And if it gets too much, they can stop without loss of employment.

It's not the people that work in the industry that I'm annoyed with, it's the people running the game dev cos. And to a lesser extent the "startups" that are also poorly ran and exploitative.

It's this same late stage capitalism BS where some people are successful doing X, where X also involved working obscene hours, not planning things out the way they would have to in a large company, and doing other things that are either "trailblazing" or "cutting corners" depending on your perspective. And they get lucky and make a ton of cash.

And so a ton of other people try and follow this path, but the only lessosn they seemed to learn was "working long hours is awesome" and "you don't need to pay people fair wages, just let passion (and/or stock options) motivate them". And people who would have made a decent living 20 years ago doing something boring are conned into it because it seems like the only path left for them.

You go into the industry because you want to make games. You leave when you get sick of games companies taking advantage of your "passion for games" to offer you an exploitative deal.

This is how it appeared to me after a few years of mods and game prototypes. SAAS jobs pay the bills with a better life balance than what many game studios are offering.

Don't judge for other people and their priorities. For some of them it IS life. Maybe it shouldn't be but there are plenty of young devs working for Google/Amazon/Startup working too hard on stuff that may be way less rewarding.

Games were life for me but I was paid relatively well and I came from and went back to "industry". Still in "Games" though so a few years at a studio helped me learn some valuable engineering skills and made me a "bonafied" (lol) game dev to most people. I don't claim to be a dev.

Sharing my perspective isn't judging for others. Certainly each person has to find what works for them and their situation.

Still, I caution people to consider the possibilities they may be sacrificing.

And then you leave, and then you realize you miss shipping games. :(

Yep, pretty much. Been out of the industry for four years now, and I miss shipping games. But then recruiters in the game industry contact me, and I just can't bring myself to go through that mess again and the pay cut I'd have to accept, most likely. And I'm not even that highly paid in my current industry (in fact, I think my wages are a lot more depressed than they could be because I spent several years in the game industry working for much lower wages)

That's when you go back to coding little indie games on the weekend. It's better that way.

And there's always more wide-eyed youngsters that want to make games. That's why individual game developers have very little leverage to push back. If they want to end this sort of treatment, they should form a union. That's how you deal with situations where employers are exploiting employees with very little individual leverage.

A situation similar to academia.

Same applies to humanitarian aid and development.

Some people just love games so much that they're willing to sell their souls and/or health to work on them.

That's kind of how I feel about academia right now -- seems highly irrational from a financial or job security standpoint for most people to get a grad degree and aim for tenure, yet there are still droves of people willing to make that trade.

You are assuming that most grad students aim to be a professor, you have any data to back it up? Since that has not been my experience at all.

I don't think you need to make that assumption. Regardless of the number of grad students leaving academia, there is a huge and increasing backlog of postdocs waiting for professorship.

This is a recurring topic here, but this varies a lot by field. In many fields literally the only reason to go to grad school is to (try to) become a professor.

On the flip side, I'm pretty sure grad school is not financially rational if you intend to go to industry.

At best, you'll get a scholarship and maybe a teaching salary/stipend of ~30k over 5-6 years. In my experience, people who can do a PhD could've been making 2-3x that much in industry.

PhDs do get hired at a higher position, but you can easily get there the normal way over 5 years. IMO a lot of grad school students are just here to immigrate.

A chance to work on hard research problems; that is not possible without mentoring for most people. If everything you do in life is just money to you; then sure PhD is irrelevant and you find absurd reasons like immigration to justify it.

I took a job at a game studio because it was one of the few places that was looking for Erlang developers (one of three in the area at the time). It was also my first professional programming gig after having done programming as a hobby for the last 14 or so years, so all in all it was a pretty good deal.

I have a much bigger network of people and companies to exploit now and so my next job very likely won't be at a game studio. It is a shit industry full of people who don't value programmers all that highly, except maybe the mythical hard-core engine programmer, while simultaneously overvaluing idea people to an almost absurd degree.

Salary and hours depend on where you work. Bioware probably does not pay much but, say IW/Treyarch, are a different story all together [1].

As for improving people lives, why do you think games don't do that? People had been remembering games they played for decades. Games have an impact. Strangers will see a t-shirt with a game studio logo and come to you talk about its games. Does it happen with the Healthcare IT too?

1. http://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/358040/exhibit655.pdf

I has asked this question a while back here [1]. The consensus is game developers don't see making them as a "job"; to them, it's about working on something magnificent, being part of a team they have dreamt about since they were kids. Of course, they burnout few years down the line, only to replaced by a new batch of zealous developers. There's an endless supply of fresh graduates who are fervent about working on an AAA title.

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8747550

> you could be improving people's lives

I'd say games (and any art, for that matter) can and do improve lives.

Art usually is not designed as a Skinner box that keeps you awake until 5am and motivates you to skip school, so you can sit at a gaming café all day.

While I found some great friends during the "gaming years", most of the time games were ruining my life.

#notallgames

Eh? Yea there are crap games out there. There is also crap music. And crap health IT software.

The best games are also the most addictive. At least many single player titles end sooner or later but online ones are endless.

Would it also follow that the "best" drugs are the most addictive?

> The best games are also the most addictive

Pft says who? Few of my favorite games can be described as addictive. You can't simultaneously make the argument that "addictiveness" in the sense you're using it is bad, and then quickly switch word senses to claim its a requirement for very good games.

I was developing and designing them, so by "good" I mean a good game design – it achieves its goal of generating endless fun.

By "bad" I mean the impact of this game design on players' lives – the game is "too fun" for some of them.

I don't know if this is necessarily a consensus, but I think expecting a game to be endlessly fun to be good isn't really the sort of standard we should be holding games to. Other media such as writing or film doesn't promise to be endlessly entertaining, and ones that might are more like engaging in sport, which I would say isn't necessarily entertainment in the same way.

I think there are a lot of players that see the Skinner Box-like mechanics popping up in mainstream works, and are increasingly turned off by it too.

Replayability and long playing times are praised in reviews by both press and gamers. So Minecraft isn't considered an addictive game but it is.

I've found that for me, games without an end are discouraging, and most multiplayer games are just draining, like going to a party where I don't know anyone.

You're missing the fact that games are designed to be addictive through reward mechanisms that favour long hours of playtime. The ideal balance between positive and negative reinforcement schemes are responsible for motivating users to keep using. Some gamers pull all-nighters for multiple days in a row just to ensure that they keep receiving the stimulus they are seeking. The only difference between recreational drugs and games is that drugs act directly in the nervous system and are directly responsible for some physiological side effects.

I recommend not playing those shitty games. There's so many good ones out there.

You can't design a game that is not a set of Skinner boxes stacked on each other.

ET on the Atari 2600?

Okay. It sounds like, perhaps, you have something of an addictive personality and can't safely play video games at all? I'm sorry about that, and I'm glad you were able to get out of it, but that's not the universal experience.

It doesn't change the fact that game design is based on variable-ratio schedules of reinforcement. Many people have issues with them (see gambling).

Not sure I agree. Take a typical video game like Tetris or Super Mario Bros 2. There's no variable ratio reinforcement in sight, the reward is based on how well you play. Oh, but you could say the unpredictability (variable ratio) comes from the game throwing new stuff at you. That sounds reasonable, until you remember that books and movies also throw new stuff at you unpredictably as you keep turning the pages. Are books also Skinner boxes then? Is it even a useful concept if you stretch it this far?

I think it's better to judge games on the axis of compulsion vs fun. Some games you play because they feel inherently fun, like Mario. Others you play because you can't stop pressing the lever and it doesn't feel much fun, like grind heavy games. Only the latter kind of games should be called Skinner boxes IMO. And nobody dreams of making games like that! So the whole subthread started by your remark seems a bit unnecessary, no?

You can disagree but it's the basics of game design, both Tetris and GTA are made fun by tuning variable-ratio reinforcements: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_gam...

Game designers dream and talk a lot about creating the "flow" which is also achieved by correct reward ratio: https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/166972/cognitive_flow...

The problem with the whole subthread is me assuming that everybody is more familiar with the subject and not writing a detailed explanation from the beginning.

The article on reinforcement doesn't mention Tetris or Mario, only RPGs with experience points and such. The article on flow doesn't mention reinforcement or reward. I can see you're thinking of them as parts of one narrative, but I don't think the articles support it. Flow is a pleasant challenging activity which is easy to accidentally drop out of. It's very different from clicking loot crates, which is unpleasant, unchallenging, and hard to stop. I'm not sure they even involve the same parts of the brain.

RPG is just the best example. The article about flow says the same in the requirements but it doesn't use the terms from psychology:

> 1. Have concrete goals [Reinforcers] with manageable rules [Contingency].

> 3. Have clear and timely feedback [Response] on performance and goal accomplishment.

I'm not making things up – just retelling the common knowledge that I used for work. Ask other game designers if you do not believe me. I understand that deconstructing pleasant experiences into a set of primitive triggers is uncomfortable (hence, over a dozen downvotes) but it's useful to see what pulls the strings from behind the curtain.

I'm sure some people do have trouble with those. Those people would probably do well to avoid video games if they disrupt their lives.

Upthread, santaclaus said "I'd say games (and any art, for that matter) can and do improve lives," and you immediately disagreed. You appear to be arguing that games are always harmful. That's silly, and that's why you're getting such pushback.

If I wanted to argue that games are always harmful, I would write this explicitly. I also didn't disagree with the statement but pointed to the problems that are unique to games.

you have a narrow idea of what games are

Counter-examples?

I recently played Life is Strange and ABZU, both of which would be difficult to classify as Skinner boxes.

Because they hide it better than some mobile city builder.

Both mentioned games are adventures where you need to overcome a challenge (condition) to get a reward (reinforcement) which could be the following part of the story or just an item.

Every single game design can be disassembled to its basic elements this way. Even the most artistic indie games are made from conditions and reinforcers.

Sorry, this is just too much of an absurd stretch. You could describe a book of pulp fiction in a similar way - you have to put in effort (read and turn pages) to receive a reward (entertainment).

No stretch, just the fundamental game design concept:

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/feature/131494/behavioral_gam...

No, the stretch is that it's a definition that can be applied to any entertainment activity that isn't 100% passive.

Technically yes, but my original reply was about games abusing this mechanism more often.

Kind of like working for food to eat?

Yeah, but they are single player with an ending, so the player is forced to stop playing unless they really love repetition of story exposition.

The game I play the most is hexcells, an excellent puzzle game with no reinforcement to continue playing. Solving is the only reward.

> While I found some great friends during the "gaming years", most of the time games were ruining my life.

Yeah, I had my "gaming years", too - EverQuest in particular ate my life for a while to the extent that it threatened my mental health and my marriage.

What I discovered though was that EQ was a symptom, not the cause of my dysfunction. Gaming is an escape; I was at a point in my life where all I wanted to do was escape from it, and EQ offered that in unlimited quantity.

Most of them probably just have unrealistic expectations and ideas about what it will be like to work at a game shop. This probably applies to designers and engineers both.

Although can you really do that well in healthcare IT? I've worked in a tangentially related space, and from the glimpses I've seen in healthcare, its all a giant clusterfudge (and pay wasn't that great either).

I've worked a couple of jobs in healthcare IT, and worked with several other big companies while working those jobs. I'd say you're not wrong.

And it's an industry where it seems like no one really has their acts together when it comes to properly managing their data or communicating their requirements in a consistent or timely fashion to the people they need to build their software, while pretending otherwise and thinking forcing everyone to take the same online HIPPA class every year is all they need.

And yeah, the pay isn't too great, unless you're an executive or founder.

> And it's an industry where it seems like no one really has their acts together when it comes to properly managing their data or communicating their requirements in a consistent or timely fashion to the people they need to build their software, while pretending otherwise and thinking forcing everyone to take the same online HIPPA class every year is all they need.

Wow, that has been my experience exactly. I think the odds are pretty high that there will be an "Equifax moment" in healthcare IT in the not-so-distant future.

Did a short stint at a healthcare IT company and also was surprised at how dysfunctional the whole industry is - can't say I was very impressed. At this point, my CV is peppered with healthcare related roles, positions I feel like I've already pigeon-holed myself :(

Overall I agree with you. I was very skeptical when I took a job at Riot Games several years ago. Luckily, Riot operates a successful massive online game and therefore operates more like a traditional internet company than it does a traditional game company (at least with respect to engineering culture and work/life balance).

So it is possible. It's just going to take enough executives and producers to take a risk (while their competition continues to crunch) and see the long term results. That or we see some sort of union/guild action which most engineers shy away from.

I can't speak for others, but for me when I started: - It's much more fun to work on something creative and with creative people than not. Yes, people will say there is a creative aspect to almost anything, but I think games (and probably other things like film) are really different. - It is a big deal to work on something that you can identify and people will have heard of or understand. I used to be able to go into a store and point at the boxes that had my name written on them. - When I was younger I really just tended to work a lot anyway.

Disclaimer: wasn't able to read the article behind the paywall.

A lot of programmers get into the game industry because there are interesting technical problems to solve. Personally I'd have a hard time working on what look to me like deathly dull problems in fields like healthcare IT. For good, experienced programmers in the game industry I don't think the pay gap is as big as you suggest. I know a lot of game industry veterans who have taken higher paying positions in big tech companies like Facebook, Google, Microsoft and Apple but I don't think your average corporate programming job pays comparably.

I started my own VR company in the healthcare space which gives me the opportunity to continue working on interesting games technology while also hopefully improving people's lives but for my own personal motivation the work has to be interesting to me, not just paying the bills and benefiting end users (although both of those are important).

I don't know about industry wide, but I do know colleagues who went from gaming to other ("corporate programming") jobs, even non-profits, and got a boost in pay.

Game shops chew up their employees and spit them out, mainly because there is no end in sight to the number of young, naive people willing to take any kind of abuse for the prospect of having their name in the credits of a game.

The game industry pays pretty badly for the first few years when they can expect people to work out of 'passion'. However if you're one the handful of people that can thrive in that environment and move past the chew up/spit out stage and become one of the senior engineers that actually keeps the ship together then the pay can be very good.

Gaming is a big industry. My experience is mostly in 'traditional' games companies shipping what used to be boxed AAA console and PC games. A chunk of that experience was at EA which has a lot of senior employees with many years of experience who are being paid reasonably competitively. Not Google/Facebook money generally but not horrible. Things might be different in younger companies doing mobile game development, I haven't worked in that environment.

Big companies like EA recognized some time ago that they couldn't afford to lose their most experienced employees by "chewing them up and spitting them out" any more and have become more competitive for senior devs in both pay and working conditions. I still think there's work to do there but it's not as bad in my experience as some people seem to think.

I work in healthcare, it really is not 4x the pay, at least not in Belgium.

I do enjoy the altruistic aspect and I do indeed work about 40 hours a week.

But I believe that people who are attracted to game development are not immediatly attracted to healthcare systems. Just a guess :-)

You can't really compare Belgium and the US though, with Belgium being in the top of egalitarian countries[1], far ahead of the USA. Talks about income should be be held between your country and your neighbouring country to have any relevancy.

[1] http://hdr.undp.org/en/indicators/101706

It looks like you're better off contributing to or modding FOSS games for free on your free time. At least you get positive direct feedback from the players when you do something people like.

Everything else is just really boring by comparison.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com