The original fix’s author updated the post about this: https://nee.lv/2021/02/28/How-I-cut-GTA-Online-loading-times...
Rockstar awarded them 10k for it.
Rockstar awarded them 10k for it.
How I cut GTA Online loading times by 70% - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26296339 - Feb 2021 (697 comments)
On one side, yeah - the work he did will be worth a lot more than $10k to Rockstar. They've had lots of people complain about & stop playing GTA online because of the slow loading times. And this issue would probably never be found or fixed otherwise.
On the other hand, he did it for fun (without any expectation of reward). $10k isn't massive and we can quibble over the reward amount, but its delightful that companies are rewarding people at all for fixes like this. A few years ago he'd be lucky to get sent a GTA t-shirt. Its definitely the right direction we should be moving in - bug bounties are a thing in security, and we should be celebrating any movement toward rolling them out in other circumstances.
This might be an argument for him to console himself (or just keep smiling) in the event that he received nothing. It isn't a valid consideration for Rockstar, which should take heed of the calculus you stated with your first hand only, because for the beneficiary of a windfall, karma awaits.
Let us spin it differently: contact Rockstar before publishing the details of the fix, and offer to help them on this issue. How much do you believe that Rockstar would value the fix *a priori*?
The truth is this kind of fix is worth a lot, but it is always tempting for the company to be penny-pinching (and come up with justifications for being so) after the fact.
Its probably because some project manager would have told the engineer who wanted to fix this that its not important.
Still I’d give him more for the significance and PR. But these things tend to be fixed rather than subjective for a reason.
that's insulting tbh
Most people don't: <https://mkorostoff.github.io/1-pixel-wealth/>
After reading his account of finding this, how long do you think it took him? 10 hours? 20? 40? That's $250 to $1000/hour for something he did out of curiosity.
I don't think anyone here can get anything close to those numbers you specify... but you could try to hire him and make a nice offer :)
In normal people's terms, if somebody did hours of labor that gained you >$10k, would you give them $10? That would be insulting, yet that's what Rockstar did.
The original post, analysis and the actual fix of this bug is beyond impressive. Strangely, Rockstar awarding $10k for that is like someone searching for lost treasure, identifies historical references which leads to finding a ton of it and somehow leaves with 1/8th of it, even though they did 98% of all the work.
For that detailed effort, analysis and with a fix, I'd say that is worth around $80k. At least Rockstar was generous enough to award them in the first place; so I'll give them that.
No good deed goes unpunished. Rockstar went out of their way to thank this person and send them a check equivalent to several weeks of median developer salary. Can we not shame them for this goodwill gesture?
$80K would be on the order of half of the annual salary of most developers outside of SFBA.
I can't even get close to my current salary in my current unrelated field ($85k) to even consider a career switch. Are the jumps from junior to mid-level/pm that high? I am a PM in construction so that may end up being my path.
Compensation in the Midwest is a joke. If my family weren’t here, I’d return to one of the coasts.
Lol, I'm a lead C++ programmer in the UK and I don't make that much. It's American salaries as a whole that are completely stratospheric.
Just to give an extreme example: if Jeff Bezos uses half his income this year to build the largest estate the world has ever seen, he's still sitting pretty on the rest of it and has the largest estate the world has ever seen.
At a 35% tax rate, your take home income is $156K. At $6K per month ($72K/yr), you have $84K left over after rent. If this is you then YOU ARE WEALTHY. There is simply no getting around this. You are making more alone, after taxes and after rent than my partner and I have ever made together total in a year in our lives, and we live in a city with a relatively expensive rental market and are not "poor".
The absurd talk about "only" making over two hundred thousand dollars a year (plus whatever your partner makes if you have one) needs to stop. It's so out of touch with the norm in virtually every city in the world that it would be laughable if it weren't kind of sad.
People taking in $200k are not in any sense "very, very wealthy", except from a third-world viewpoint. $200k in today's dollars approaches what would have been called "middle class" a few decades ago, when there was one. Now you are only low, below $300k, and high, above $1M, with very few left between.
(In countries with regular health care and education, life costs less, so this about the US.)
The plutocrats have been very successful at deceiving American voters that they are not almost all now lower-class. The Powell Memorandum, 50 years ago, laid out the plan. It has been followed since then, and Americans now are routinely persuaded to vote against their own interests.
Wealth produced in the US has been rising as fast since 1975 as it did between 1945 and 1975, but normal Americans' income since 1975 has been flat. The whole difference has gone straight into the pockets of the extreme rich, and they are who are very, very rich. You and I have no concept of how different their lives are.
In 1975, regular parents could pay for putt their kids through college while paying their mortgage.
Mate, I don't know what to say. You live in a bubble made out of solid stone granite. Literally anywhere else outside of US that kind of salary makes you "very very wealthy". Within top 1% definitely. So I don't know if you think anything outside of US is third world? Or what?
>>(In countries with regular health care and education, life costs less, so this about the US.)
So how does this work with your statement above?
In the US, it would be lower middle class, if there still were a middle class. So, instead, it is high in the lower class. If you consider it wealthy, then congratulations, the propaganda is strong with you.
I'm living in NYC right now and paying less than half that in monthly rent.
Real estate and property tax is rediculous, state income tax is high, and restaurants around here charge $18 for a hamburger these days. We're going to have to move once the kid(s) are old enough to be hindered by the bad schools. It's enough to perhaps make the high salaries not quite so competitive, and especially so if you need to pay for private school.
Salary is only a partial picture of compensation in the bay area, though. If you're a software engineer at a FAANG type company, you're potentially getting 1-2x your salary between bonuses and equity. If you joined early on at a start-up that's doing well, you're perhaps getting set up to spend your 40's mowing lawns like Forrest Gump if you want. It's enough that, even if you take very conservative career choices, you could work hard out here for a decade while living comfortably, then move somewhere else, buy a nice house outright, and work for fun while not stressing out about money ever again.
The extra time can now be spent playing the game instead of waiting, increasing revenue.
So relatively speaking, it's a low payout for a huge company like Rockstar to give on their game grossing billions.
Know your worth! Demand more! Capture the value you produce!
- Chris in Duxbury, MA
PS For context: I've been building web-related things for a living since 1998, and have always been paid fairly for it. Because I insist.
PPS Ofc YMMV... circumstances, personality, ambition, etc etc. But there is so much more opportunity to create and capture real wealth than you might imagine.
In Norway, country of «holy crap, I’m an employer lobbyist and our salaries are so high we can’t compete in the export markets», you’ll only be around this level if you’re a freelance contractor billing 100% and doing all the sales work yourself.
There are some CTO and probably a few lead roles paying this much, but for an IC you’ll top out around $120k. Prove me wrong if other Norwegians have a better view :)
This will give your company a unique competitive advantage in capturing the best talent your market has to offer (and it likely has plenty of world-class talent to offer, but many of them end up getting brain drained away to those hotter markets today). It will also allow you to stay small for longer, dramatically reducing communication/coordination overhead and delaying the need to introduce management hierarchies, which is actually a substantial competitive advantage especially for early stage companies where agility and flexibility is the key to success. If all that's not enough, it will also do wonders for retention since it's basically a semi-permanent golden handcuff.
Over the long term, other companies in your market will end up having to compete with _you_ for talent, which raises the boat for everybody and helps your local market flourish with engineering talent and reverse the outward brain drain trend.
The unwillingness of employers in other markets to compete for talent outside their local maxima, optimizing for short-term self-interest over the long term health of the local talent market that they depend on for global competitiveness, is a true tragedy of the commons situation, and is a huge part of what makes Bay Area startups so dominant.
It's also what forced my hand into moving to SF myself. It would have been extremely financially irresponsible of me to stay. By leaving 5 years ago, I tripled my salary compared to competing local offers, and one job change later I'm now making more than double of that (at a startup, not at one of the big tech corps).
Nowhere in the world outside SF/NYC is there so much VC money that can support paying developers those salaries.
I would say over 90% of tech companies make their money from local markets. You can pay your developers as much as you make from your local market.
As for hiring. You have no idea how well someone is going to work out. Some people are really good at interviews but turn out to be terrible employees and vice versa. This is why the hiring process in tech tends to be pretty convoluted and broken in general. No one can figure this out. The laws regarding hiring are also much less liberal outside of CA. Hiring and firing is severely restricted in many places.
Very few companies are in the position of being "unwilling" to pay developers more. Some with plenty of cash are even simply limited by the tax laws how much they can pay. The cost of paying someone too much over local market rate incurs obscene tax costs.
Getting to that point is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem, though. And firing policies is a political barrier that's hard to avoid. I suppose you could keep everyone on as contractors, paying them standard rates but going to them directly, not through an agency. That would land the salaries in the region suggested, and you'd still have the ability to fire without cause.
This is fascinating to me, do you have any examples of jurisdictions where this is the case?
Here in Germany the “taxes” (they’re technically mandatory insurances) than an employer will have to pay on top of the gross salary all have a salary cap, the largest one being around €85k. After that any increase in gross pay has no additional cost. Of course my personal tax rate might take a hike but that’s not the concern of my employer.
A lot of the conversation is about the value of the developers work being high enough to warrant higher salaries. With that argument we should look at gross salaries + taxes/fees paid by the employer on top of the gross salary.
Your personal tax rate is between you and the state.
This could mean hiring 1 really amazing engineer instead of 2 or even 3 average ones depending on the realities of your local market, and pay them based on what it would have cost you to pay the 2 or 3 engineers combined.
This is always a choice you have available, unless you're bootstrapping and can't even afford to make the first hire at those rates, at which point you're probably not looking to compete on the global stage to begin with, so this suggestion doesn't really apply.
Of course, the employee then has to pay VAT (19%) on everything they spend those 55% on.
Going off on a tangent: I personally won't leave for California/SF since I have family here and won't put the obviously massive financial advantage ahead of that.
But I did consider this when I was in my twenties. It wasn't a super easy choice. Interesting to hear that someone have taken the leap. Not multiplying one's salary by 3-6x could indeed be described as quite financially irresponsible, and the alternative has to be pretty important to pass on that.
They are in the UK with a somewhat decent healthcare system, somewhat sane rents (notable exception: London) and a somewhat sane pension system.
US salaries are so high because US salaries have to cover for all three points additionally.
Examples:
I lived in the UK with all those things you describe, but I still made a point of billing my Bay Area rate because that is what the work product of a software engineer is worth on the market.
So, no. Even if you live in your parents basement and they cook your meals and take are of your other expenses, you should still approach your work life as though you were an adult.
"and you're not making over $150k/yr, you're almost certainly underpaid."
Those salaries don't exist in the UK, no matter your position or the company you work for. I know senior programmers working for Faang companies in London and they don't make this much. Like, in general you won't see a position offering above £100k/year. I know someone with 25+ years experience in the industry and they are on an (incredible for the UK) £90k/year.
The only way to reach the equivalent of $150k/year in the UK is to work as a contractor and be good enough to justify billing that much. As a normal employee you won't see that.
My point is - it's impossible to judge everyone in the world by the American pay standard. Would I make more money in the US? Maybe. Would my standard of living be better? Also maybe, but I lean towards no with this one. But it's almost certainly not true that by making less than $150k/year you're underpaid in a place like the UK.
You'll see that mid-level (L4/E4) engineers at Google & Facebook easily break 150k; senior engineers (L5) start at ~225k and hit 300k. That's about 30-40% less than what Google & Facebook pay engineers in SV.
I also saw multiple other companies where engineers with less than a decade of experience were approaching or breaking 150k - Transferwise, Improbable, Palantir, Morgan Stanley, Booking.com, Cloudflare, Bloomberg, Yelp, Babylon Health, Goldman Sachs, Stripe, etc.
Either you're underpaid, or C++ has been commoditized to the same point as PHP. If you value money over language, I'd switch. But given quite a few in my network are Java developers, I doubt language is the issue here.
If you moved into in-demand fields, service delivery or consulting, you'd see 100k GBP as normal for seniors. The fields only require mastering the tools or domain and the ability to work with business stakeholders. That is from my experience, the majority of the software world.
I don't know what your friends told you, but either you misunderstood them, are talking solely about base (and see my other comment for why >100k base also exists in those roles), or were given inaccurate information. 100k GBP would be 45-60% of the credible range for senior engineer compensation at Google/Facebook in the UK (and maybe 55-70% for Amazon). That's so far outside of the standard compensation bands that other explanations are more likely.
I worked for a US/UK company with its engineering HQ in London until recently and was earning drastically more than that. Now, I was an early stage employee and doing unique work for the firm. That position wasn't advertised - I created it. But some of the more senior engineers on my team (in the UK) were earning about $150k/yr GBP equivalent, a bit more in some cases.
Are salaries in the UK lower than in the USA, yes, absolutely. They are not that much lower than non-SF jobs in the USA.
I have two guesses - either you were a contractor, or worked for a bank where I've heard it's possible to cross £100k salary. Or third option, you mean <£100k of salary + bonuses?
The one I worked for wanted me to move to London, and I said fine, as long as you give me a comparable standard of living.
Nope, they took my Irish salary and converted it to GBP, and that was it (this was post Brexit, btw).
Obviously, I didn't move. And working with any engineers in the London office was a massive pain as anyone without family commitments worked in London for a year, and then transferred to the US for a massive salary bump.
The core issue is that FAANG don't benchmark against finance in London, which means that pay is pretty out of wack.
For instance, I got a 150K offer from an investment bank in London around that time, and I'm definitely not as useful in finance as I would be in tech.
It just blows my mind that they haven't fixed this to be honest (I suspect that they'll have to, now that Brexit has actually happened).
But even putting that aside, most senior (E5) Facebook engineers in the UK make 125-160k base salary in the UK. Even if that's denominated in USD, that still leaves a significant % breaking 100k GBP base.
Source: https://www.levels.fyi/company/Facebook/salaries/Software-En... (filter for "United Kingdom")
Normal software engineers make that in Sydney and Melbourne. You need to negotiate a higher salary or switch jobs.
If the author of the bug fix is indeed from Latvia (.lv), the median annual income of a senior software engineer in the Baltic states is currently around 30K-40K after taxes.
Wow, I need a raise.
Better than nothing I guess, but suggesting that it's OK to exploit people because of where they live is kinda crass. This is an industry where you are (should be) valued based on what you can create, not where you live.
To flip this around, if this guy lived in Haiti would you say it would have been fine to give him $1k because welp, cost of living is even lower there? Insulting.
And again they had years and years they could have fixed this themselves, at in-house prices if they wanted to. They had to be shamed into it by a third-party developer pointing out their "could be fixed in a day by a single developer" tier mistakes. O(n^2) algorithms causing minutes-long load times, repeatedly reported by thousands of customers across the game's 10+ year lifespan.
It's like giving a waiter a 1% tip. Is it nice that you gave them a tip at all? I guess. Technically nobody asked them to get you your food. Is it a reasonable fraction of the value delivered by customary standards? Not really. And in this case it's like a 0.01% tip.
Disclaimer: I don't live in a big city like Tokyo.
Even traditionally mod friendly companies will tend to sweep in and either block any derivative work that's monetizing their improvements or else negotiate with the creators to take the lion's share and republish the content under their company label. There are a bunch of examples of this but Counter Strike is a pretty famous one.
That all said, it's pretty hard to argue that making minor alterations to a product should allow me to resell it as a novel work. Fan Fiction exists - but it doesn't (legally) exist as taking a novel and taking on a few new chapters then reselling it without giving a portion to the original author.
Do you think the fix is actually worth 80k in terms of additional revenue for Rockstar? I wouldn't be so sure. If not though then no it's not worth $80k.
"I'm a developer and I'm paid a lot to do my job, therefore everything I do must be very valuable" is not the right line of reasoning to use here.
The only relevant fact to justify $80K is -- would slow loading times have resulted in at least $80K of lost sales going forwards? Or at $50 a copy, then starting today would there be 1,600 people who would buy GTA V, but won't because they know loading times were slow? Maybe because a friend or reviewer mentions that as a con? (And you can also add lost DLC revenue from people who gave up playing earlier than they would have otherwise.)
Honestly, that's an incredibly hard question to answer. But it is in no way obvious that it is "absolutely worth that much and more".
In contrast, $10K is a nice round number that demonstrates gratitude for their charitable work. And keep in mind this was probably a weekend's worth of investigation or so. Not many months of dedicated work, which is what $80K buys on the job market.
Diminishing the notoriously bad load times of GTA:Online by 70% could probably do that. I actually never got into the multiplayer because at the time my HDD was taking several minutes to load the game.
It doesn't matter how much money GTA V made in the past. This applies only to future profit that would be have been lost going forwards.
You are forgetting the game which Rockstar made. A loading times fix is not 98% of the final product.
One should not hold people responsible for acting "non-perfectly". Any behavior exceeding "average" should be met with admiration and gratitude, average behavior with "respect and appreciation", and anything somewhat sub-average with "mild disappointment but no surprise and some understanding".
Having a company spend money they are technically obligated to allocate to share holders, to a developer who, without any pre-existing contract or even verbal or commonlaw understanding, helped them, is way beyond "average response" for modern businesses.
Please, don't hate on the vanishingly small number of counter-examples blazing a trail in this space.
I don't think this line of thinking is helpful. Should Amazon increase the price of their VMs if you made more money with them? Should a doctor charge a lawyer a higher price for a flu shot because their time is worth more?
Of course not. Because in all these cases, the clients would just go buy someone else's service.
Of course it is helpful to consider the value of the work you produce, and you can use that in negotiations. But you are not entitled to a higher rate just because your client is big or successful.
If the developer had offered a two day consultation for $80.000 to Rockstar they would most likely have declined and said, sorry, for that money we can hire someone else to do a lot more performance improvements.
If you want to get paid based on value created, you need to negotiate. But you don't have a moral right to get more money for the same effort just because your client is rich.
Frankly for an introvert with no public online presence or audience that’s just not very appealing. There’s easier ways for software developers to make $10k: just wait for two paychecks.