I thought similarly when I was younger, but then I became a manager and realized it’s not so black and white.
Going back to IC developer (for a while) was a surprising relief from the stresses of managing people.
I know some companies let managers run wild and make devs do all the work, but most successful tech companies actually have very high demands of managers. A decent manager will be good at hiding all of the behind-the-scenes issues from the team, but I didn’t truly understand the volume of problems managers quietly deal with until I was in the role.
Basically, you as a manager do all the hard work.
The boss of your boss... he can do some hard work, or he can just rely on you and the other direct managers, and simply get the benefits.
An upper level management job can be very stressful. You have very little visibility into progress or issues, but are responsible for setting direction and making decisions with many consequences. If you get involved, you’re called a micromanager. If you don’t, you’re out of touch.
Cross-organizational pushes become harder, with more inertia, and more perverse incentives dragging things down. You spend all your time debugging the mess of an organization, not on the things that brought you to the industry.
It can be a very stressful, unpleasant job. I am not trying to claim it’s harder, or that the pay is proportionate or whatever. But the idea that they can rely on the work of others, coast by, and get the benefits is not at all true from what I have seen.
I worked mostly in startups and FAANG, maybe other sectors are different.
>Any organization that designs a system (defined broadly) will produce a design whose structure is a copy of the organization's communication structure.
Management is responsible for the organization, hence why comments about how hard it is to deal with a messy organization tend to fall on unsympathetic ears.
I'm saying managers justifying how important and difficult their jobs are by pointing to all the organizational debt they deal with are missing the point.
A shocking number of managers don't even manage. They just run around putting out fires caused by a lack of management. Organizations can get stuck in this mode and it's really hard to pull them out of it, for sure, but just because someone's navigating a stressful and dysfunctional organization doesn't necessarily mean they're doing a great job at management.
The daily work of a senior leader is mostly communication, alignment, and politics (i.e., resource allocation). From the outside (and sometimes the inside!) this looks like "lots of bullshit meetings." Coasting at this level simply means that your priorities aren't fulfilled, your initiatives fail, you're cut out of important decisions.
- you manage managers of three teams globally with 6 employees each.
- you know that your best IC is about to go on parental leave
- three others are either leaving or moving to another team in the next year
- your european team’s manager is not meshing at all and there’s pressure from all directions to fix it
- after shuffling or firing the european manager (who you genuinely like personally,) you suddenly have 8 direct reports you need to meet with weekly and support
- new teams form with overlapping responsibilities and you have to create a relationship with that team and its leadership so no one steps on the other’s foot and there isn’t confusing ownership
- you hire a new european manager and now you have to fly overseas and train them, while at the same time handling issues for your home team and your own personal responsibilities
- in the middle of all this and while your schedule is peppered with interviews to conduct, some random high-visibility initiative with no owner and outside your area of expertise gets assigned to you.
I’ve seen directors suddenly get 30 new ICs three levels below them and have to somehow write their reviews. It ain’t all pretty.
> you suddenly have 8 direct reports you need to meet with weekly and support
You really, really don't need to meet each of them weekly. Not even necessarily monthly. Depending on the individual, some you might need to meet more than others, but the idea that you need to meet each one weekly is a self-imposed problem that of course robs you of at least a full work day, and past a certain scale requires more managers to handle. This is ignoring the content of the meetings, which if you get into make the case even worse for management, because so often a short email exchange or even a short Slack exchange suffice for what otherwise would have been 30 mins to an hour. (One of my managers was rather skilled at digging out of me over the course of our 1-on-1s some of the minor problems/issues I felt were present with the team/company that I otherwise wouldn't have brought up in an email/IM (and if I did not more than once), but given that they never changed or went away in 6 years, and that I had already made peace with them, what was the point?)
Same thing with conducting a ton of interviews -- delegate to ICs of the team the candidate is likely to join! It's your own doing that you insist on having a screening chat with every candidate, or that you have this many candidates you're considering at once, or that you hire into a general "pool" where team selection/assignment happens later.
Same thing with the needing to suddenly write the reviews for 30 people -- the need for those reviews is entirely a self-imposed problem, and could be done away with or altered. (e.g. relying on ICs reviewing each other, or using objective metrics, or having an easier firing process than long PIP dramas, or just bumping everyone's pay regardless to keep up with inflation, or...)
Unfortunately system problems can typically only be done away with (rather than 'solved' with management work / more management) by someone at a higher level than you, whose higher role is in part supported by the problems existing in the first place.
Somebody needs to. It's important to put in the time building relationships so that people are comfortable coming to you with concerns and so that you can recognize their patterns and notice when there's something they're not telling you.
People have babies, people change jobs, new hires don't work out. All of these things are known. You identified them as risks and planned accordingly, right?
> some random high-visibility initiative with no owner and outside your area of expertise gets assigned to you
Oh, I see.
When you're an IC, you have no idea what your manager does. You have even less of an idea of what your manager's manager does.
I know I was naive about direct management until I tried it and realized just how much they do that I never was aware of. And as I became a more senior IC, now working directly with senior managers (managers of mangers), I found out just how much they're involved with.
At high-intensity high-output companies (including gaming ones), it's very rare that senior managers end up just resting on their laurels and letting the line managers do all the work.
First of all, it's an all-encompassing job. You are effectively oncall for various escalations, personnel issues, priority/project issues, conflicting incentives - you are responsible for all the people underneath you, and all the conflicts that might occur that direct managers don't handle - they escalate to you. At that level, there is no expectation of work-life balance, you might get called in the evening/weekend to deal with something. While you're detached from the depth, you are responsible for way more breadth.
Secondly, line managers are still expected to be primarily focused on their technical projects and their people. Senior managers have to start dealing with Legal, Marketing, Sales, Facilities, office issues, christmas party organization, press release, etc. Sure, some of it is just coordination and delegation, but the point is that you have to organize all sorts of disparate considerations that frankly are not in technical people's forte. This arguably becomes 50% or more of the job, and this is where things get really tough. Do you want someone technical for this that will be MISERABLE spending time on 50% of their job, and not doing an amazing job at it? Or do you want some MBA type that will be great, but then have no credibility with their team, no ability to influence the techncial direction, because their people will sniff out their technical weaknesses and not respect them for it.
Naturally none of this is universal. There are exceptions of exactly what you're imagining - someone that just steps back, lets everyone else do the work, and they aggregate/summarize and take all the credit. But I don't think those are actually the majority.
Amusing to see this attitude on HN in the 21st century. Have not the last 20 years of startup successes having very technical founders successfully transition to more managerial roles more than demonstrated otherwise?
There is also a big difference between doing these things as the CEO of a 100-person startup, where every choice you make is a reflection of you, a reflection of the culture you're setting up, and contribute to the legacy that YOUR company will have, vs as the Sr. Manger of a 100-person org in a huge company, where ultimately it's not your company.
That’s what it was like for me, anyway. I’m an IC again now…
If this becomes a problem, I would rather assume this as a strong sign that there are simply too many management levels in the organization, which makes managing the multitude of management levels difficult.
Turns out the flat structure doesn't work out either; you will have a hierarchy, one way or the other (that is, planned or emergent.) I think us techies underestimate the necessity of coordination, and yet we paradoxically chafe at meetings.
now realize that large organizations are basically distributed systems with more smaller unreliable components.
you could not have a horizontal spunky start up land on the moon in the 60s. It is too complex and too much information to possibly transmit to everyone.
There are distinct issues and hard problems at each level of the company hierarchy.
its a lot like software architecture in a way. Getting up and running is easy in the beginning, one person can dictate how everything fits together and things are straight forward. Then as you scale, things that were easy and simple are now bottlenecks, so through refactoring, you create a more solid foundation, that if looking naively at the initial implementation is more complex and structured, but it allows a framework to handle bigger challenges. Success at this stage is how well the architecture lends itself to scaling.
Large companies require structure, and their success is dependent on how well that structure operates.
small companies need a group of smart people in a garage.
It’s fine for non technical customer liaisons to have input, but putting non technical people in charge of a product doesn’t tend to work well in my experience.
It does take a lot of vision and leadership to successfully run a large company. Unfortunately, I would argue, we tolerate a lot of unsuccessful companies.
indeed. i can't figure out what sort of organizations all of these "omg get rid of middle management" folks have worked for.
if you've got piles of middle management who only have a few reports each, well, sure, that's not great because now they've got too much time on their hands to pester you. but the other direction is no good, either.
i've seen a VP with 45 direct reports before. he didn't get much done, and shed bodies as fast as he could hire new ones. he didn't know anything about any of his people, and they didn't bother trying to take their problems to him, they just quit.
Since taking this position I've started to think of middle managers as human lubrication on the gears of bureaucracy. The better the gears fit together, the fewer of us are needed. Unfortunately, we're not really incentivised to make ourselves useless, so designing better gears isn't something a lot of us spend time on. And I don't know how one could properly incentivise a whole class of mid-seniority people to work themselves out of a job.
It's not, though. On the management side, you quickly learn that teams range from proactive (will get the job done without having to ask twice) to the most mind-bogglingly slow group of people you've ever worked with. If you're not constantly asking questions to understand each situation further, the latter group will abuse their lack of oversight to no end.
It doesn't make sense if you've always been responsible and ethical yourself, and you've always been surrounded by responsible and ethical people. But once you get into management, you realize that you can't count on everyone being honest like yourself. A small but troublesome minority of employees will take full advantage of any slack you give.
It doesn't mean you should make the situation bad for your high performers (common mistake), but it does mean that you do need to ask questions to understand what's going on when things are falling behind.
In the above example, the next management move would be to understand why the onboarding was so slow and to allocate some resources to fixing it so it doesn't happen again. Something that wouldn't happen if management hadn't started digging in to understand.
Is it protecting developers though? Or rather protecting higher ups from direct consequences of their crassness and cluelessness?
If in absence of middle manager, the upper manager said something like that to me he would have my resignation next day on his desk, along with a request for a raise and strongly worded demand to accept one of those documents.
So yes the Manager is protecting them, and helping set expectations for the higher ups.
Replace higher up with Customer and you get the same system. Customer demands something unreasonable, that doesn't get filtered to the team that is working on that feature as it's just a distraction to them. Let them do the job and execute on the roadmap as planned.
If there's a better moment to negotiate, I don't know what it might be.
Would hearing this be distracting for me? Sure it would be. But it's not me who would get to pay for my distractions. So it's 100% of protecting higher ups not developers.
One of the things I learned very quickly was that I was naive to assume that all developers were diligently working on their tasks with reasonable effort. At first I assumed everyone was working just like I did as an IC: Straight to work, focusing until the task is done, and enjoying the satisfaction of finishing things. Unfortunately, a surprising number of developers won't do any work unless they're constantly pressured by managers.
Junior managers often need help identifying the latter and understanding how to performance manage people. It was actually surprisingly common for a new or junior manager to hire an unexpectedly underperforming employee and not have any real idea how to manage their performance. Or worse, they might hire someone who become actively toxic to the team and not understand how to deal with it.
Stepping in to help performance manage, or eventually remove the problem employee, was actually very critical as it prevented all of the good performers on the team from quitting. Few things will destroy morale as quickly as a deadbeat showing up on a team and dragging everybody down with no consequences.
From the employee perspective: Have you ever had a teammate who didn't pull their weight? Imagine how frustrating it is if management is clueless about the person's relative lack of performance and isn't bothering to investigate why there isn't any output. Eventually you're going to get sick of doing their work for them.
just give them the information they want. If they don't like the truth, that is a different issue. They are asking you, because you have more intimate knowledge of the situation.
The more I work as a developer, the more I appreciate the work of good managers, and the less I want to do it.
And that's the key - good managers.
Now, I think that it's pretty hard for most people to identify good vs bad managers, and that's why a lot of people who aren't sensitive to the difference get into the mindset of "management is a bunch of toxic leeches who don't add any value to the company".
Interestingly enough, it's also pretty hard for most people to identify good an bad developers - but most people aren't developers. It's far easier for those that are.
This raises an interesting question - is it harder for managers to identify bad managers than it is for developers to identify bad developers? What about the ease of developers identifying bad managers vs managers identifying bad developers?
I wouldn't be surprised if it's harder to recognize good/bad managers - management is all about abstracting away the stuff under you for the next level up, after all.
But, I also wouldn't be surprised if the problem comes down to something else other than identification - maybe bad managers are more prone to keep bad managers around than bad programmers are to keep other bad programmers around...
It's at times like this that I wish that I had more experience in the corporate world...
Communication between teams on feature alignment (read: tons of meetings), planning my team's sprint workload, dealing with other manager's politics/bullshit, dealing with Directors political bullshit, etc. It's a huge time sink away from actual engineering.
I inherited a team of seven working on a project. They were led by a very strong personality who led the project based on his principles (he was interested in funneling as much corporate money into "free software" as possible while resisting delivery of business value). He'd been running the project for a long time by the time I inherited the team. One of the upper level folks gave me a call on Thursday and said, "In the operations call on Wednesday I'm going to propose killing that project because it's gone off the rails. We can use the money elsewhere. Just giving you a heads up".
I spent the weekend figuring out how to pivot the majority of the staff into other projects, use staffing as-needed to develop features for business need, and provide a minimal maintenance budget. I called the guy who wanted to kill it on Monday, presented the plan, and he said he'd sign off on it.
When I told the lead that the project will need to change he was outraged. He accused me of abandoning free software blah blah blah. I didn't get a chance to tell him about how I saved his job and the jobs of everyone else on the team by working 32 hours on my weekend and finding them other work to do.
Save the day by investing your free time into making things work, then collect outrage anyway. Management in a nutshell! Great anecdote.
> They were led by a very strong personality who led the project based on his principles (he was interested in funneling as much corporate money into "free software" as possible while resisting delivery of business value).
I've dealt with someone similar. It's strange how certain people can work their way into management while actively fighting against the company's mission. Of course, it doesn't work out well for themselves, the company, or the team they manage.
Why not tell them?
Depending on that lead's personality he may "go over your head" and start complaining directly to _your_ boss. Which means you'll be dragged into yet another 30+ minute meeting when your schedule is already packed with meetings.
Part of your job as a middle manager is to not only shield people below you from unnecessary drama, but shield people above and beside you from unnecessary drama also.
This is where you have to use your past experiences with each individual person to gauge how to act. Do this for long enough, and grinding leetcode an hour a night for 2 months and just going back to moving tickets left to right at a FAANG company for (oftentimes) more money starts looking appealing.
But then you have some days where everything goes great, a major project is shipped without any issues, and/or you're able to (finally) give a promotion to someone who deserves it which makes it all worth it.
I ended up switching into speaking/training. All the pros of management (mentoring people, getting to speak) all the pros of coding (coding training materials is fun and simple, zero tech debt to worry about) and less responsibility on both sides.
Middle Management is hard. Constantly being torn apart by top and bottom. You either have decent manager that gets your team a huge boost of productivity but stressed to burn out. Or they run wild and becomes the villain themselves. I guess this is either you die being a hero or do it long enough to become the villain.
I have had tech leads come to me with solid solutions for their little slice of the world except it would be detrimental to another team or project that you can't talk about yet.
So you have to delicately tip to about your tech team with out upsetting them. Which is difficult because they largely see you as useless middle management. All this while doing the dance with the senior managers/execs justifying why your team deserves bonuses and pay rises, or taking their half baked ideas and 180 flips in directions and trying to calm them and figure out what problem it is they actually want solved.
It's equally hard to do good or bad management, since most of the time you have no idea if you're achieving either outcome - and neither does anyone else.
The problem with all forms of management is that it's completely unscientific. The main resource you're working with is a "human" which has emotions and who will respond to inputs in very different ways depending on all sorts of factors you as a manager don't know about.
And, when you put a group of "humans" together you might expect a direct increase in productivity - 6 humans should be 6x more productive right - you'd be wrong. Also, for whatever reasons the dynamics of the individual humans change in groups! They are differently productive depending on what other humans they work with! And, since there's no scientifically proven way of categorising them - you can't even tell which ones will work well with other ones.
Oh and the big joke, even if you get that working, sometimes they *change* and then some part of the group is broken for some unknown reason.
Then there's the problem of measurement, and I don't mean the team members. As a manager trying to measure the outcome of your own efforts is difficult, bordering on impossible - maybe something you did changed something, on the other hand it might be some other factor you know nothing about.
Finally, you might expect that the individual "humans" might know what makes them individually more productive. But, nope - most humans have no idea what makes them individually more productive, and then throw in a team setting and you're in a whole world of pain. Some of them think they're "analytical" and can't tell that they're dragged around by their emotions, love life, caffeine, commute or sunshine quota. There's a variety of 'received wisdom' stories they tell themselves, but it's often just a random walk.
So actually ALL management is hard, and you often have a equal chance of doing it "well" or "badly" on pretty much a daily basis. It's as hard to do it badly, as it is to do it well since most of time you're not sure if either is happening.
I am willing to bet, if engineers were given the chance of doing management for 3 months, more than 95% of them would want to go back debugging computer code than debugging human emotion and debugging organisation.
Because of this, managers are (intended to be) paid so well.
Examples are:
- salaries for programmers are lower in game development
- the "everybody can program" hype is intended to increase the supply of programmers and thus decrease the salaries
- at least in Germany: jobs with a "social feel" like geriatric nurses are paid less, because these people are told that their job satisfies an important social responsibility
So, because middle management is so stressing, less people want to do the job, and salaries increase.
Passions projects as a job can be very expensive.
It's just an anecdote, but one dev told me at the studio he worked on, his project had 22 engineers assigned, but just 3 devs ultimately contributed 90% of the code written. And while those 3 devs were very skilled developers, he claimed they weren't so-called "10x" engineers. They've all since moved on to greener pastures doing work outside the industry making substantially more money.
Well, sounds like they were more like 7x engineers /s
Consequences also can be extremely subjective. I have the experience of a single team architecting/coding the core of the system to ensure nobody ever adds any kind of concurrency because "it's hard to reason with and we want nobody to spawn threads." Let us say the networking layer teams were not excited about this. Who is right and who is wrong: both teams had "consequences" to deal with.
I’m getting the feeling from some recent AAA games (looking at you EA/DICE) that quality is going down with each released game while spin-off studios pop up indicating to an outsider that some “core” competence has left.
All that seems symptomatic of under-investing in development, especially the exploratory & creative type of development, i.e. R&D. At least Epic has spent some of that Fortnite money on building great tech for UE5, it seems, and that will get proliferated through use of their engine and matched by competitors in time.
There are very few people with relevant graphics programming skills. Who cares if 10000 undergrads wanting to be game devs if none of them know C++, and even fewer know what a pointer is.
You may think I'm joking, but even undergrads coming out of the most elite institutions have no knowledge of these things.
How the hell you gonna explain compute shaders to a guy like that? You can only license out these problems to third party tools so much. Epic isn't going to come in and save you when you fuck up the release.
I believe there are lots of people who have a strong desire to get into the game industry and will accept low pay, miserable work environments and uninteresting assignments to "get their foot in the door" because building games is a "dream job" to many young people going into software development. Little do they realize that there aren't very many people who get to single-handedly invent and code up the next big game hit. They're going to spend approximately 0% of their time creating kick-ass gameplay and awesome pixel shaders, and almost all of their time doing something mundane like being the expert on the "loading..." screen or figuring out why the menu animations glitch in this one weird scenario.
Most developers want to make games like they would want to play them. That means no grinding, no pay to win, no taking advantage of your players. But if you run your studio that way, you're way less profitable than the competition which is managed by greedy sharks and fully "monetizes" (=exploits) anyone who's willing to touch microtransactions. For stock market companies, having competitive numbers is a big deal or else you'll pay through the nose for borrowing the $200 mio that a AAA game will cost.
In short, "the market" makes sure that game companies become exploitative, and true believers leave to fund their own indie studio.
But that means I disagree with you that senior management adds no value. They do precisely what they were hired for, which is to make sure the studio has a good stock price and, hence, enough money to finance future games. It's just that most developers hate em, and for good reason.
Yes but those companies are freemium or in-app purchases "games" which is AFAIK a completely different model than Ubisoft which sells $60 games once like FarCry or Assassins Creed.
You need business smarts too if you want to succeed. Ion Storm is a good example as it was everything contemporary Ubisoft is not. It was a very developer-run shop that out of one office produced critically acclaimed Deus Ex, but at the same time produced flop-of-the-ages Daikatana.
It's a tricky balancing act. You can definitely have too much business influence over the creative process. Ubisoft would never produce a flop like Daikatana, but neither would it produce a gem like Deus Ex.
Ubisoft is actually good at making crap games. For example they bought a Brazillian studio that was often contracted to do some cool hunting games. Then they forced the studio to pump low-score after low-score NDS games (Wedding Designer was one of them), there was tons of executive meddling, then they said the studio that was crap and closed it down.
Thing is, at the time it was literally the best studio in Brazil, and this incident caused some damage to Brazillian games industry :(
It's all sure bets with low creative risk, which makes every sense if you are primarily pandering to shareholders.
This is something that has definitely gone through waves a few time during my life time.
In particular I remember the early startup era (~2010) developers were treated very well (though I don't think they were ever treated that great in the games industry). Ironically they weren't paid as ridiculously as today, but they tended to play a much larger role in the company, and their time was treated as very valuable.
Back then startups would be a team of engineers, a designer, a marketer with all of the product vision coming from CEO or maybe as very senior product role (typically cofounder). The contemporary world filled with PMs would have seemed (and still does to some of us) foreign to anyone at the time.
The truth is industry tends to despise a "monopoly on talent", and so we've seen the bureaucratization of the industry. The rise of boot camps has worked to devalued the skills of a talented engineer (though it might be harder now than before to hire talent), interviews are formalized into a robotic screening processes, and the current structure of teams, largely driven by PMs/product owners, has radically devalued the input form engineers in the way the product is developed.
If you have been in the industry less that 10 years you'd be surprised how much say engineers used to get in at the start of the most recent tech boom, as well as how different the hiring process was. In 2011 the two biggest signals for interviews were a strong github page and especially OSS contribution. Passionate, curious software engineers were the most sought after people and they were considered very much a part of the leadership of a company, driving it's culture and success.
Today engineers have been more or less reduced to hot-swappable drones across the industry.
The actual solution would be to be suspicious of software as an end and relinquish more control of it to the open-source commons so that they can optimize their core business. But that can't happen if your core business is "being a platform," and as we know, platforms are where the big profits lie anyway. So it's going to go on like this until we cycle out of the current software stacks and move into ones with different social arrangements at their core.
Has it?
Everyone loves to dunk on EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Blizzard-Activision, etc, for producing mountains of AAA shovelware[1], but the big players in the industry seem to undergo a pretty normal rate of growth, death, and merger for large companies.
It's entirely possible (Likely, even!) that under better management[2], they'd be more successful, but I wouldn't say that gaming firms are driven into the ground by managers any more frequently than they are in any other industry.
There's certainly a high rate of bankruptcy and death in small and medium-sized gaming companies, but I feel that has more to do with the incredibly speculative and inconsistent nature of cashflow, and the high cost of securing funding in the industry.
[1] Given that people have been dunking on these firms for that reason for the past decade, they sure are taking a long time to be driven into the ground...
[2] The bar for 'better management' is pretty damn low for some of the firms I've mentioned.
EA today isn't EA of the late-80s / early-90s. It's essentially something named "EA" that managed to smartly buy assets of failed companies.
The funding difficulties and cyclical nature of revenue is real, but I guess that's why you see a similar model evolve in movie production.
Take a look through the developers during the early part of EA's history (for example): https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Electronic_Arts_game...
There were none that I could find that hadn't gone through this exact pattern: (1) be bought by larger publisher, (2) lose key creative talent, (3) close as an entity and have remaining employees folded into larger corporate teams.
You'd think if average "big game publisher-developer" management were beneficial to developers, you wouldn't get subsequent failure so reliably.
I don't think you can blame the management, as much as you can blame the funding model. (And the funding model is such because banks aren't interested in lending money for speculative creative projects, and neither are VCs.)
> You'd think if average "big game publisher-developer" management were beneficial to developers, you wouldn't get subsequent failure so reliably.
I wouldn't say it's beneficial, but it's the only way that most of them can get the money to fund their projects.
When was the last time you saw actually original (as in, not based on last year's surprisingly successful novel), creative, non-"mainstream" movies at your city's cinema? Interstellar or (to a certain extent, given that the plot was more or less copied from Pocahontas) Avatar, likely.
Anything else is moved off to niche/arthouse cinema or straight to DVD/Netflix.
With games, it's the same. Innovation has been sorely lacking in many genres from racing to shooters - it's all remasters, microtransactions, free to play and advertising bullshit these days or the atrocity that Rockstar made out of GTA 3/VC/SA. Last actually innovative game in the shooter genre probably was Borderlands.
In fact, most of the Oscar Best Picture nominees from 2020 [0] meet that description better than the movies you cited (not sure what was in theaters last year, but most of them were readily available from a mainstream source; I'm sure that in a normal year most would have been in mainstream theaters).
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academy_Award_for_Best_Picture...
Encanto (11/24)
King Richard (11/19)
Last Night in Soho (10/29)
The French Dispatch (10/22)
Sure, but that's just the thing, actually. Gamers overindex on what _they_ like, which simply isn't what the general public cares about.
"Video game players" as opposed to "gamers" really want two things: they want to play Madden or FIFA with the newest rosters and the best graphics. And then they want to take a break and play the Call of Duty game with the best graphics.
Why do these AAA studios need to innovate when this formula doesn't just work - it's doing absolutely excellent? We have indie studios to satisfy gamers' creative-game needs.
Just looking at video games, the most profitable games now aren't AAA games with super immersive graphics, worlds, stories and so on, it is the mobile gacha games with simple graphics and simple mechanics that are basically predatory in how they are able to ingrain and establish themselves into a routine while they siphon money away from a certain demographic of their user base. These days AAA games are mostly AAA in their cost to produce, few are innovative, or produce better gameplay or tell better stories than what is being made by smaller indie studios. Most are just pretty to look at if you have a beefy video card that can crank the settings up.
It's figuratively (and sometimes literally) the equivalent of someone cruising college bars looking for folks "willing to be paid for a few private pictures."
Take someone with hopes, dreams, aspiration, pay them the minimum you can get away with (that due to their stage of life seems like a lot), dress up the entire experience with pomp and fun and free snacks, tell them how they're going to change the world, extract every ounce of profit you can from them, at the expense of their life, health, and career, and then dump them by the side of the road and GOTO 10.
It's a fundamentally exploitive business, and it shows in the salaries (especially vs work volume expectations). At least MAMAA pay sufficiently well that it's a mutually beneficial deal to employee and employer.
IMHO we should all expect a 50+ headcount company to be better though. Like, have a business model that doesn't require screwing people over & have functional HR.
If leadership says "Decrease harassment AND protect the company," then that's a thing HR can do. Or they could not, or say "but make sure to give anyone that makes the company a lot of money a free pass," and HR doesn't try.
Unfortunately it seems par for the course for many "flashy" creative professions. There's a much larger influx of people wanting to work in the industry than actual jobs, so employers take advantage of the situation to press down wages and treat people like shit (say, unpaid internships).
The ability to ensure you get “the right kind of person” is the probably real reason for them. It’s no different that legacy admissions really.
Even if you think the hierarchy is useful for practical purposes, a cooperatively owned business can give voting rights for everyone so they elect a manager and can fire or demote them as needed. Instead we get the mess that is Ubisoft.
Smaller developers work in very cooperative endeavours. While some form of work councils don't need to be antagonistic to management, there often is simply no need of something like this in smaller studios.
Game development is an extremely high risk endeavour in any case. A large developer like Ubisoft can dampen that risk a bit, but insecurity remains. This is a large driver while they will use established formulas much more often than smaller indie devs. A union does make sense in some industries, but tariffs would probably lead to worse conditions and leave the individual dev with less choice. Currently many employers do quite a lot to accommodate devs.
So, when has that ever worked, apart maybe a small startup between friends?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation
Maybe what you mean is “if it works why isn’t it common” which is a much more nuanced question. I would say that McCarthyism and the Red Scare in the USA had a huge negative impact on the labor movement, and there has been a big propaganda push for individualist capitalism (which benefits the powerful) since then. People seem to think that if an idea isn’t common today, it’s not a good idea. But that ignores the possibility of an idea whose time as come, or a new good idea that hasn’t been tried yet.
Of course cooperatives are not new. Credit unions are member owned cooperatives. And of course there are many individually owned worker cooperatives. I’ll leave that for you to research but do see this directory of Bay Area cooperatives.
The structure is much closer to what you see in the recording industry contracts , there's even been cases in the past of publishers denying milestone payments during peak burn to put the company into bankruptcy to gain the IP + source and then re-hire the dev-team back at 70% salary. Combine that with an robust supply of fresh faces trying to "break-in" it's not really a surprise the industry is the way it is.
If you're on the dev side of the industry you've got quite a few options to exit, if you're in art there's less options since a lot of adjacent industries have similar conditions(I've heard from past co-workers that the animation industry is even more brutal).
It's really a shame since there's some really fun technical problems to be solved and a lot of creativity but that ultimately gets exploited into the state it is today. It could be a better industry but it isn't. For those that want to build games I usually recommend doing it as a side project, there's a high probability that you can work on a genre you like(I never did during my time in industry) and you aren't subject to the state of the industry.
I used to think middle management was the thing to eliminate. But then I learned - middle managements’ job is to protect their team from disconnected leadership.
I’m not sure what the answer to that is, but I’m committed to finding out how to create a great place for engineers and their creativity. My co-founder & I created a company just to do that. Mostly it’s about avoiding inputs that drive exploitive management. We don’t take outside capital, we fire clients if they don’t treat our engineers well, just shedding anything that seems to be or proves to be exploitive.
We’re already finding out just how much it matters - the people we hire are having the most fun they’ve ever had.
The money we make is fine, but not really the point. cover salaries, do cool stuff.
They have their own problems but, last I checked most people like working there.
This sounds like a very biased perspective. Sales and marketing is not "non functional bloat" - it's actually far more important because if you don't have sales then you don't have a business.
There have been countless companies with brilliant engineers that no longer exist because they couldn't actually bring a product to market. Also managing people is incredibly difficult and easy to ignore if you've never done it.
Clearly not true, especially in b2b enterprise where you can sell even if you don't have a product
When we were instructed to use it, we discovered that the "database" (really just a custom prolog engine + storage container) couldn't support paginated queries. Would have to fetch millions of rows on the server, then pick only the 20 we were interested in to send to the front-end.
Most of the dev team spent the next few months doing little but dreaming up powerpoint presentations we could use to get millions, as every schema change required recompiling the entire db from source, so we had lots of sitting around time until management figured out how badly they screwed up.
The problem is that the industry is rife with bad managers who only care about themselves instead of the actual producers of output.
Truly surprising to see how many managers overestimate their role so much without producing any value.
Managers should be paid less than ICs and should really only be assistants to ICs (especially if ICs are syncing with product, marketing and doing all non engineering work anyway). The manager is only a paper pusher at this point.
Once again, I have to refer to the excellent work "Bullshit Jobs"...
> This is just not true.
Minecraft is the best selling game of all time[0] and while it's been marketed more since Microsoft purchased it, the first million sales happened within 7 months of charging for the game. Just over a year after commercial release it hit 10 million sales.
This was not a period of Minecraft marketing. Most sales were due to people simply seeing others (friends, YouTubers) playing the game and wanting to try it themselves.
[0]: Wikipedia claims 238 million sales, vs GTA V in second place with 155 million. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_best-selling_video_gam...
Anyway sure, maybe there are apps that instantly go viral with minimal marketing but if you build an amazing tool, put it on the internet and don't talk about it to anyone I guarantee you it will get 0 sales.