I think more developers need to get better at negotiating. One 10 minute conversation can beat years of 2-4% raises. It's all about setting expectations and being willing to walk away.
Edit: obligatory "above is true in my experience, YMMV"
Hit Senior (easy to do after 5y) and game companies throw money at you to come over because getting people in who have a shipping mentality is hard- most people who want to be gamedevs see the glamour, those that ship see the pain a mile away and how to avoid it.
The issue might be that most who become senior do not really move because the tool chains are largely different between companies. Frostbite and Snowdrop are incredibly different game engines and even those working on Unreal/Unity at the AAA level invariably maintain a fork due to limitations in the engine itself which makes it not compelling to sacrifice all your knowledge.
Also, I find that most companies end up turning their C++ into a custom C++-like language with fancy types like growable hash tables and vectors. Many of which have quirks which require experience otherwise there can be footguns. (Some functions may be more correct but quadratic and others are fast but less precise and knowing when to use what is part of being a senior in some companies)
So yeah, of course all the guys leaving Blizzard are getting snatched up, and there is a lot of demand to fill their shoes, but those roles need to be filled by equally competent people, not just anyone off the street.
It seems that in games, you either have leverage to negotiate, or you don't. There doesn't seem to be a credible middle-ground like in other software disciplines where warm bodies capable of writing for loops are all that's required to build the product.
I've heard about game dev's surplus of workers for at least 10 years for almost identical reasons in most of this thread, and that would make nearly anyone a senior for sure, so that problem should have been "fixed" by now.
What I also see is people leaving due to crunch and burnout - companies which are famous for it seem to lose a large number of employees every time they finish a project, I see that in applications. They aren't being fired, they are just burnt out and they look for a place with better work life balance. We have a bit of a reputation for being really good about it so we see those people apply to us.
And then finally, the "I really wanted to work on X all my life" still applies regardless of seniority and if the opportunities appear people take them no matter the compensation.
When you negotiate a higher salary, you are saying to your boss, look, I know I am creating more value for you than I'm getting as a wage, and I know you can't just swap me out with somebody else. You're actually making a demand that needs to be underwritten with a credible threat, no matter how politely you communicate that. You demand that the company realign your wage with your value (actually, you demand that they get closer, they of course never pay you your full value, or they don't make any money).
It's really that simple. You get what you have the power to get. It's not magic, and it's not all about the attitude or w/e.
Of course we are all still constrained by material reality! If you can't make the credible threat, you can't "just" negotiate. (Duh)
You're forgetting that hiring managers know exactly how much everyone gets paid. This gives them extreme leverage in the negotiation.
If it were public information that the last person was offered $x (for a given position), it would be much harder for the hiring manager to justify an offer of $x-$25,000.
We are all shooting ourselves in the foot for not sharing our salaries.
Candidate: I'd like $150K. Comparable companies offer people with my experience $150K.
Company: We'll offer you $100K.
Candidate: I'll walk if you give me less than $140K.
Company: Ok... Bye?
Candidate: How about a little more equity?
Company: How about no?
Candidate: OK. $130K and maybe a bigger potential bonus?
Company: We're already interviewing the next person.
Where you're right: yes, you need to foster the conversation. It's a skill that one develops with practice.
Where you're wrong: I negotiate for my consulting business and I can guarantee you that the companies don't have "the power." The power is held by whoever is better at negotiating. If you're good at negotiating, you will hold the power.
1. your work is worth 150k
2. other comparable companies would pay you as much
then why would you negotiate further at that point? It’s obvious that your interview partner is looking for someone cheaper. If they do want to hire you, they will make you a fair offer.
Negotiation skills are about negotiating 180k in that situation.
I'm pretty far from a FAANG uber-dev though.
2. Your willingness to walk away is, indeed, your primary leverage. Ongoing employment is a great way to have lots of leverage there — you can start filtering out offers at the "recruiter is emailing me" stage — otherwise, develop leverage by collecting multiple offers at once (lining up a variety of interviews so that they come in around the same time).
I see some people act like negotiating is an antagonistic game of chicken or something. In reality, it's just an amicable case of you finding your best options, communicating them clearly to everyone involved, then taking the best option. Think of it as more like an auction than some slick game of poker. What's wrong with this script?
Candidate: I'd like $150K. Comparable companies offer people with my experience $150K.
Hiring manager: We'll offer you $100K.
Candidate: I'll walk if you give me less than $140K.
Hiring manager: Ok... Bye?
Candidate: Okay, bye. [Takes a job earning $150k at one of those other companies]
In general, I think the benefits of negotiating don't go to the individual. They go to next individual/the market. You repeat that script a few times and the hiring manager goes to HR and says nobody's taking the job unless they pay more.
(If instead, you say "okay, fine I'll take $100k, I was bluffing" then that's what the next person is offered too.)
> "Just negotiate better!" OK, great... how?
My mental model is to approach it cooperatively. You're not trying to beat them. Talk about other data points if they say you're not being realistic, and talk about the reasons you're a better fit than they accounted for when you ask for more. They say they're better than the next company and you say you're better than the next candidate.
But most of all, just make sure you actually have that alternative you're willing to walk away for. Interview while you have a job. Time your interviews so that you have options while this conversation takes place.
YMMV. I've gotten like +10% from negotiating and +30% from walking away to take other offers, which should tell you the relative importance of each.
In practice, companies keep multiple candidates in the hiring pipeline and candidates usually interview with multiple companies at once. It's not a 1-on-1 game, it's an N-on-M game. Unless the specific candidate has something ultra-specific to offer, companies are fine with declining increased salary demands.
I'm not suggesting that people shouldn't negotiate, but you have to keep in mind that neither side holds all of the cards.
> Candidate: I'll walk if you give me less than $140K.
> Hiring manager: Ok... Bye?
As a hiring manager, I might have multiple candidates with different levels of seniority in my hiring pipeline. I might be willing to pay $300K for a senior, $200K for a mid-level, and $100K for a junior employee (example numbers). If my mid-level candidate threatens to walk unless I pay them $300K, I'm going to let them walk and give the $300K offer to the more senior candidate. I have no desire to overpay for a mid-level when I can get a senior-level for the same price.
This is what most people forget in negotiations: You're not just negotiating against the company, you're negotiating against everyone else who wants the job.
In practice, reaching equilibrium requires being willing to push the demands until your demands or offers are being rejected more than they're being accepted. That requires more sample points, so always apply to as many jobs as possible.
Incidentally, that's why I don't like those "transparency" initiatives too much. Most people willing to share their salaries on twitter probably are on the lower side of the pay scale, thus biasing the results down.
If you are putting the first number out you're already working from behind.
Company: We'll offer you 100K.
Candidate: I'm really excited about the role for xyz reasons and I liked meeting with (insert persons name here) because it allowed me to learn about (insert reason you actually like the company here).
I had a question about the offer. The base salary was a bit lower than I was expecting. Do you think we could get it adjusted? (If you have a point of leverage insert that here like, "My current comp is actually pretty close to this offer and I am expecting an promotion sometime in the next 6 months based on conversations with my manager").
I hope we can work this out over the next few days because I think this opportunity is the right next step in my career.
Let me know what you think. Thanks!
Company: "Okay we can do 115K"
Candidate: Thanks so much for getting those adjustments. I was targeting closer to a 150K base salary. I am very invested in the role and the company though. I'm specifically excited about working with XYZ.
Do you think we can move the base salary closer to that 150K mark? If not could we get a sign on bonus for the difference?
If you could get to 150K base salary or something like 130K with a 20K sign on bonus I'd be ready to sign today and could start 2 weeks from Friday.
Company: probably comes back with something less than 150K but something a whole lot better than 100K.
I've had exactly one person I coached ever have their offer pulled. He basically said here are all the reasons your company sucks and I need XXXk to come work there.
That's not negotiating. Negotiating is finding a point where you and the company both feel like you are both fairly valued.
I've never seen an offer pulled, but it's common for companies to move on to other candidates when someone wants to draw out the negotiation process too long.
This comes as a shock to some candidates who forget that companies can't wait around forever while they decide who to work for. The position must be filled someone quickly.
Expecting someone to make a major life decision in less than a week is frankly silly.
Recently I want to move work and willing to take a pay cut just to move so gone in with the honest approach which I am told is bad for maximizing salary. Right now I'm not to fussed about maximizing, it's just moving.
The conversation normally goes:
Company: What is your current salary
Me: $XXX,XXX, that is negotiable as actively looking to move and will take less for the right company. *(I understand it's a high salary to the rest of the market where I am even though I am not in the US so salary is still well below US Junior FAANG)
Then it's been one of two things:
1) Get offered 30-40% less (20% less is my ballpark, 25% for a company that really interests me) 2) Bye
I've been told the job market is booming where I am but in 15 years it's the first time I've struggled to find a job although my skills are in demand overseas. I feel I'm fairly competent, I get told good things by people I work with and my salary has naturally grown through promotion based on my skills/performance yet I'm starting to question is it just me and I'm not that good why I am now struggling to find work despite going in to large orgs as a small dedicated team to do projects they couldn't deliver.
It seems if I take a big paycut to where I was 5-10 years ago, forget 15 years of career and revert back to writing NodeJS/Python apps my luck will be better.