> For many kids who grew up with controllers in their hands, being a game developer is a dream job, so when it comes to talent, supply is higher than demand
This is basically the reason for low wages in quite a few 'passion' driven industries. If a job is something enough people want to do, then talent is cheap and plentiful and companies can provide low wages and poor conditions that for every person who quits, ten more are lining up for the 'opportunity'.
You can see this in all manner of arts or entertainment based fields, since there are far more people wanting to become artists/musicians/writers/whatever than there is demand for their services. You can see it in journalism, where in many cases organisations will try and get work done for free, and will pay so little that living off said wages is virtually impossible in a major city if you don't have a trust fund (though admittedly the huge increase in competition from the internet puts pressure there). And I even recall people saying it's one reason teaching wages aren't too high either.
Unionisation may help, but the only practical solution is for people to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of 'passion', and to go where their skills are appreciated/where they're treated better/fairly compensated.
> the only practical solution is for people to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of 'passion'
So the “practical” solution is to change human nature? That doesn’t sound right. It’d be like saying that the practical solution to human trafficking is for people to stop visiting prostitutes; or that the solution to gangs’ drug income is for people to stop buying drugs.
In all these cases, you can quash supply; or you can constrain and regulate the way that the supply supplies, so that it doesn’t hurt people in the process; but—even in the most totalitarian state you can imagine—you can’t quash demand. Humans gonna want what humans gonna want.
In this case, the demand is “the ability to express myself to a huge audience.” People are willing to pay to do that. Because of that, they see any job where they get to do it as a net positive, even if the job is horrible. Because, in essence, they’re taking the original trade they had in mind (paying to reach an audience) and then balancing out an increase in the troublesomeness of doing that, with a payment for dealing with that troublesomeness that moves the needle all the way from “paying for” to “being paid for.”
Can confirm this having accidentally ended up working in the Media industry (in a non-passion capacity).
More pertinently, I know someone trying to get an entry level role in a similar passion field and is struggling.
Adding to the problem is:
- Passion fields are quite insular and like to only hire from within the industry
- Nepotism is everywhere. In something like art, hiring so and so's son/daughter may cost you $30k but could close you a $10M deal which is good business
- Pulling up the ladder culture: "well I had to go through XYZ to get where I am so I don't see why this new person shouldn't also have to do it and maybe a bit more"
I think the real problem is we've somehow managed to glamorize work as an end rather than a means. Is spending the first 5-10 years of your working career doing grunt work which could be making coffee and doing photocopying really "living the dream"?
I don’t know, I think Jason knows a lot more about this stuff than we do.
The supply/demand thing, I wish he omitted because it lets people look at things way too reductionist.
It’s actually very difficult to look at a salary and have that tell you something about supply and demand for a job. It’s obviously not that simple. In particular, it would be impossible to look at that figure and try to make heads or tails of what the “supply and demand” for executives is, because they’re paid so much radically differently. And yet accelerators churn out CEOs every day! You’d point out that I’m asking the wrong question, “it’s not about supply and demand when it comes to executive pay.” I agree, and I don’t think it’s about supply and demand for game developer pay either.
From a strictly economic point of view, the bonus system is very distorting. You get paid a huge bonus if your game gets a lot of units sold after your crunch time. However, since the publishers own the studios now, that doesn’t happen as much, and the bonuses go to the “shareholder” (ie the CEO and other highly stock compensated executives). Seems like exactly the sort of thing a union could negotiate!
But making the low line developer sound like the antagonist? “People to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of ‘passion.’” Like I know you didn’t mean to sound like the bad guy, but is your line of argument really to ignore how economic structures in the industry underpay people, and instead it’s the underpaid people’s fault for being passionate?
For an example of unionization and certification issues that deal with this, look at the medical field.
There are many more people that want to be doctors than there are spots in med schools (US-centric view point here). The AMA artificially keeps the enrollment numbers at med-schools low, so as to drive demand for doctors in general and therefore, increase their wages. The AMA is well aware of the current shortage of pediatricians and over-abundance of cardiologists. Though the employment dynamics of literal brain-surgeons are a bit different teachers or gig-bassists, they do largely follow the same patterns in terms of pay. Granted, most MDs in the US really are very good at their jobs, so I'm not all that put-off when they literally save the lives of my loved ones (money has no value there).
Compare this to nurses and their employment dynamics. Phlebotomists aren't paid badly, but they aren't paid well either. Their shifts are hectic, long, and erratic. Hospice nursing in the US is nearly criminal in it's underpayment and overwork, especially for the emotional labor that goes into it. The reason here is that there is a vast oversupply of people that want to be nurses and in medicine.
The core issue with both cases is that such jobs provide meaning to people that want to do those jobs.
They trade off different things for that value. MDs trade their 20s and a lottery ticket into med school for that meaning in their lives, nurses trade comfort and pay for that meaning in their lives. MDs have what amounts to a very strong union, nurses (generally, but there are many exceptions in the US) do not have as strong of a union.
Generally, any profession that provides meaning in the life of a human will either be very underpaid/overworked OR will have a very strong union/credentialing system to pass before becoming employed. We all regress to the same level of misery.
> Unionisation may help, but the only practical solution is for people to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of 'passion', and to go where their skills are appreciated/where they're treated better/fairly compensated
This. Unionisation is basically an attempt to reject the reality that there isn't enough demand for all that labor to be valuable at/above market-average.
Ultimately I don't think there is a right answer and which way you choose is up to you. But it sounds like a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation.
Lucky are those who are passionate about things the majority of the labor pool hates but many businesses need.
Edit: Just to prevent misunderstandings, this is my opinion on Unionisation in this particular industry where there are many (private) companies. It can be a different story if your only employers are not driven by profits and losses or are not in a competitive market (e.g. a government) and I wasn't trying to make a sweeping generic statement like "all unions are always bad"
> the only practical solution is for people to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of 'passion', and to go where their skills are appreciated/where they're treated better/fairly compensated.
I worked a couple years in game industry (shipping an auto racing game for Playstation and contributing to a few other titles; I did sleep under my desk a few nights during crunch time so we'd have a demo ready for E3).
My overall experience was amazing. I have a passion for motorsports and loved gaming as a kid. Part of the overall enjoyment (read: value proposition) I derived from that position was that it was in motorsports and gaming. I loved going into a computer store and seeing "my" game on the shelf. I look forward to showing my kids the game [that will look like crap now by comparison]. (I also, without any hard feelings, left the industry because it was clear that it wasn't going to get me where I wanted to be financially.)
I don't think that people should be prevented (or even shamed) for taking on work that they are passionate about. I'm glad I did it; I had some great experiences [spending Speedweek in the hot pits as a business trip is great], worked with some amazingly talented and passionate people, and took away some great memories before moving on(/selling out? :) ).
By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to pursue their dream.
In economics, there's the concept of a compensating differential[1]: when two jobs require the same skill and training, but one has an unpleasant aspect, so you have to pay people more to take that one.
The canonical example would be window washers on the ground level vs for a high-rise building. The latter -- even with appropriate safety measures -- is scarier, so they make more, as people willing to go up in those things are harder to find.
You can also have a negative compensating differential, where the job is so desirable that people take a lower wage to work in it, which is what's going on in the game industry; compared to developers and QA for other industries, they make less.
Another example might be astronauts, which make a lot less compared jobs requiring similar qualifications (i.e. extensive education, training, memorization, and fitness).
Part of the problem is that while there is a lot of emphasis on "following passion", "dreams" and "sacrificing for the project", there is very little emphasis on "actual working conditions", "reality of that dream" and "impact of such sacrifice" (or whether it is even reasonable).
It is changing a bit lately but to large extend, going through deadmarches was/is bragpoint. It gives you credibility and proves you are passionate. Ability to say no and negotiating for good conditions, scope control and good treatment is framed as weakness or laziness.
That's only one half of the solution, the other half is taking into consideration that there's less demand for video games critics than there's people wanting to do it, and possibly choose another less crowded career.
I don't think that's necessarily true. Sports are another passion-driven job thay many, many more people want to do than are able to. Unions are the answer, but not just because they're effective tools for equalizing relative leverage between labor and owners. It's because unionization engenders a self-respect for one's employment - "THIS job that I do in particular" - that forces cooperation from management. It helps in this analogy that athletes are bona fide top-of-the-class performers, but the success of unions in other creative areas, including ones involving only moderate skill, shows that this principle extends further than that.
When people leave for greener pastures, they take their experience with them. There is no one that knows the tricks management uses to squeeze working hours out of employees (often unjustly and unfruitfully). The real solution is to unionize and force management to weed out the incompetence that creates inefficiencies that crunch is used to correct. Contrary to popular belief, unionization has thr potential to increase overall expertise.
Many of us working jobs we don't really have 'passion' for are doing it to fund the things we are passionate about.
I really hate it when people talk about how they need public subsidies to follow their self-gratifying dream, like that money comes from people who aren't following their dream. I'm not going to work harder on stuff I don't like to support you having fun.
The greatest difference is that in arts and journalism the companies are struggling. The videogame game industry have its troubles, but is full of money.
I think the other dimension here is the number of people who equate passion with qualification. They enter the industry thinking that a lifetime of playing video games qualifies them, whereas you actually end up needing strong software engineering skills, often with an emphasis in graphics and other math-heavy niches, a strong work ethic and many other qualities. Passion helps. Years of being a customer helps. Doesn't replace other qualifications, though. I've seen more than a few friends on the losing end of some miserable attempts to create their own video game company (or graphic design business, photography business, etc.) because they equated interest with immediate ability.
Also, there are a crap ton of people who think lazily: “i love playing video games / i am so good at playing video games, that i should be a game designer. Look at how stupid these developers are compared to me!!”
Ive known several of this type. And they are terrible at understanding the grueling tediousness it takes to develop a good game.
Basically they operate on the superficial end of things and think they can grok the actual reqs to develop something.
This effect hits non-profit organizations really hard - people feel like they need to suffer to earn the right to make the world a better place, but the overall effect is that non-profit workers lead precarious lives, and their effectiveness suffers due to this instability. People with the ability to fix organizational dysfunction can rarely continue to make those wages, and so
they move into for-profit industry.
In a basic income society people can do (if they want) the jobs they have a passion for without poor conditions.
And people who will want a higher income will do the jobs that a few people can do (highly skilled jobs..), or wants to do (picking up garbage, cleaning toilets...). These jobs will probably have much better conditions than now.
To add to your list, aerospace is a big one. For senior stuff they usually pay ok but especially entry level jobs, even in software, they know that everyone wants to build jets, rockets, and satellites.
Personally I would argue that in terms of education we need to encourage academia to give students a cash cow to milk prior to chasing their passion.
Learn the basics of a trade, THEN you can do Drama. There's this dreamy state of mind that bets way too much on making it and its important that "the worst case scenario" for an actor not making it isn't a dead-end job but a trade/profession they can also excel at.
It's weird but even in sub-sectors of the gaming industry (like server/back end developers which are in permanent short supply) the experience of working in that industry is terrible - there is a general assumption that if people actually might enjoy part of their job you should treat them like crap. So, I partially agree but there is another factor there.
It is appalling that the top 3 comments (at time of writing this one) are victim-blaming. "They should get better jobs". "There's a high demand so they should go elsewhere". "They should have known before they went there".
Where have you been in the last few years, and how have you not learned anything about abusive practices which entrap people? These companies are basically abusive — they abuse their staff with long hours and low benefits, taking full advantage of the cool-factor to entangle them. As anyone who has the slightest empathy and has read anything in the news cycle in the last few years would know, people caught in this situation are often unaware they're being abused, blame themselves, and don't realize there is better elsewhere.
If you're one of the people who are, right now reading this, thinking "That's a load of BS these people are idiots and they deserve what they get", then I implore that you think again and realize you are essentially blaming the victim. That's almost never the right side to be on.
What we need to do is expose these companies for what they really. Put all these things out in the open and air them for all to see. Perhaps at some point we can have all the major studios unionized, and perhaps once their internal cultures become less toxic, their external one will likewise clear up a bit. Here's hoping.
Enh... They're not victims. They're just people who picked a profession that doesn't have great terms. By changing professions they may get better terms. That might also change the supply in the industry and help others too.
One lucky thing about game dev is that your skills do transfer. Whether to graphic design or programming or marketing or whatnot. It's not like they got a gamedev license and are locked in.
I never understand this kind of black and white thinking. So I either have to believe that people are total victims of circumstance with no control over their own situations or my opinions are "appalling"?
The reality is that there are obviously unfair elements to how these industries are operating and it would be desirable to most people to figure out how to improve that situation. It's also a reality that at the end of the day people have a big incentive to understand the big choices they are making in their lives regardless of subjective fairness. Regardless of your moral position it certainly seems they have paid a price for entering the industry and they entered the industry on their own free will(I doubt many people are being coerced into video game dev through threats of violence, blackmail or extortion).
Like literally everything else, the truth lies in the grey area and it's not "appalling" to have other opinions.
The idea of being so unable to believe that there may be validity to an opinion you don't like is a whole lot more appalling in my opinion.
Apparently, everyone is a victim these days simply by making life decisions they end up regretting. Nobody is responsible for anything concerning themselves anymore.
The idea that these people are entrapped is a bunch of nonsense. We're not talking about people that have zero alternatives besides scraping at the bottom of a barrel. We're talking about people that are already well-paid and would be even higher paid if only they decided to switch industries. They can switch jobs and they do switch jobs.
That's simply the truth. It's not victim blaming. The allegation of victim blaming itself is dishonest. These people aren't victims. These people have jobs they don't like. Welcome to adulthood, comrades!
Unionization is never going to happen, and won't have much benefit.
Excessive overtime and crunch need to be outlawed. It's not a matter of whether or not it's paid, beyond a certain threshold it's a question of health. Nothing will change until people start suing. If companies can just abuse and then terminate people once their lives are ruined, they will continue to do so.
I agree with this and think there's been a really good effort lately to shine a light at the problems. A good example are the articles by Jason Schreier of Kotaku.
However, I'd also like to add my own data point. I'm someone who grew up dreaming about developing games and taught myself programming as a kid, with the idea of spending my days as a game developer. However, after having heard so much bad stuff about the game industry and then experienced it first hand when doing a summer job at Starbreeze, I decided to stay away from the game industry after I got my Master's.
Nearly four years later, I ended up switching jobs and entering the video game industry (at an EA studio). I've been there for four years, now. Every week I actively turn down headhunters trying to recruit me for all manner of jobs outside of game development. A lot of things could, and should, be better in game development. But all in all, I still love making games and am much happier with my day to day job now than before becoming a game dev.
> For many kids who grew up with controllers in their hands, being a game developer is a dream job, so when it comes to talent, supply is higher than demand.
That's the crux of this entire article in one sentence. This might be an upopular opinion here, but right now the supply of developers overall [across all industries] is much lower than demand. No one is forcing a developer to work for a game studio. It might be your dream job, but if you're not treated well you're a highly talented skilled worker, go work for someone else. Let the supply diminish because of the working conditions and alternatives and suddenly studios won't have the option to treat their employees this way.
> In many of these cases, laid-off employees had no idea what was coming. One developer at a major studio told me in February that he and his colleagues had been crunching — putting in long hours, including nights and weekends — for a video game release, only to be suddenly told that security was waiting to escort them off the premises.
Man, that really sucks, if you think about it. I'm sure many people here on HN have worked very hard on something in their life. I know I have, and in a couple of cases I ended up being acutely unhappy with the outcomes. But, DAMN, at least none of my moments of extreme toil were punctuated like this.
I was a core developer on a major feature of Sleeping Dogs/'True Crime: Hong Kong' for 2+ years. At one point, when the game was still being published by ATVI under the title 'True Crime: Hong Kong', ATVI cancelled the game and 100+ developers were laid off including me. Fast forward a few months and miraculously Square Enix decided to pick up the publishing rights for the name, invested a few more months in polish to finish up the title and released it as Sleeping Dogs. I was of course delighted that this canned game saw the light of day and people were able to play it.
In Sleeping Dogs, despite the significant work I put on the project my name appears in 'Special Thanks' instead of being listed as part of the development team. This is very unfair and inappropriate.
Enforcing a clear set of crediting rules would be one of the things that a game developers union could do.
I'm all for protecting the vulnerable and underprivileged. I'm all for universal healthcare, increased minimum wages/EITC, and increased taxes on the rich.
But I'm very skeptical of the idea that white collar professionals earning well above the median, are somehow in need of "protecting". They have every opportunity to quit the video game industry and take up very lucrative and easygoing jobs in other industries. They are expressly choosing not to do so. That is their choice, and their burden to bear.
Anything that reduces competition in the marketplace is bad for society as a whole. This is why I'm all in favor of anti-trust regulations and breaking up the tech giants. This is also why I'm not a fan of unions. Maybe a case can be made for specially disadvantaged demographics. I just don't see it for programmers.
It's incredible reading through the comments on this post and nobody seems to see the game industry for what it is: the canary in the coal mine.
Programming within the game industry is sliding rapidly toward blue collar, and you'd be a fool to assume the problem is contained. The problem for programmers is simple - Supply and Demand.
Thanks to a massive publicity push from big tech, the public is being sold - hook line and sinker - a story about how we're in a "shortage of developers" and how everyone needs to "learn to code". Combine that with the plethora of boot camps, and online materials, and it's never been easier to pickup JavaScript on a weekend and be coding a website.
I've never seen people shoot themselves in the foot more. For god sakes, you're sawing your foot off at this point. There is now a massive wave of young developers, just getting their footing who will be entering a work force near you in the next 10-20 years. And don't forget about remote workers, they gun for your job too. It's becoming more and more technically feasible for a software shop in the US to hire a dev team based in, I dunno, China. I've seen it happen to a group of incredible devs. At the end of the day, the numbers didn't pencil in their favor.
Ask yourselves if you really think the good times will always roll. Really ask yourself if Obama standing up in front of the nation beckoning for everyone to "Learn to Code" was really good for you, or good for the big tech companies that got him up there? Wake up, and smell the ashes. There are industry and economic forces actively working AGAINST you. Don't help them. Stop parroting the narrative that there is a "shortage of developers", for starters. And hedge your bets while you're at it - get really good at something. Specialize. Maybe it's firmware, maybe it's iOS AR, maybe its machine learning, find something niche, and get world class level good at it. In 15 years, hopefully you'll be one of the few still making "6 figure salaries".
Jason Schreier has been pushing for game developers to unionize for a while now.
In the case of programmers, it really doesn't make much sense. There's a lot of BS that can come with unions. They have transferable skills. It's just easier to change jobs.
For more specialized workers a union probably does make sense, eg: 3d artists, game testers.
But I think union organizers are really only interested in the programmers, because they'll probably generate the most dues.
Not anymore no. It used to be when I did it in the 80s and 90s. It grew up and it is hell now (if I may believe my friends in the industry).
Edit; come to think about it: I made games a few years ago; educational games for government, utilities, zoos and education for money, so a job and that was still fun and really quite a dream job imho. But not big open world fps ofcourse :) Nice 2d games which is like the most anyway.
Edit 2; what I liked about game dev in the 80s and 90s was the limitations of the machines: you could lock yourself up in the basement for weeks, eat and drink and dream optimizations while writing the most rancid (but in my eyes genious) code and in the end ship it and never think about it again. I would say it was far more of an intellectual challenge than (for most devs) now as all was always from scratch; engines did not fit in memory or were just too slow if they they did. Also; there was a clear end to deathmarches: after a while nothing fits anymore and you cannot optimize it further so you ship or just scrap it. Now you can continue forever marching, which must be hell.
Daily rates for developers, dbas, qa's and such...
The same guild could make special rate sheets for different stages of a firm. For example SAG has a daily rate sheet for indy films, a software dev guild could have one for startups as well. This could at least prevent abusive startups.
If you are a star developer equivalent to a celebrity actor, these would just be the minimum rates. There is nothing preventing a studio from paying more.
If anything this would resolve the use of contract labor 1099 misclassifications. If you are good enough to get paid above 120k you could have a loan out corporation and deduct more of your costs while still paying union fees.
Throughout my childhood I enjoyed playing and making games. I eventually studied a mixture of CS and digital art in college in order to join the game industry. It was a dream job to me in so many ways - I imagined an open, friendly culture of people working together to create an immersive experience. The reality: minimum wage entry level, planned for "crunch" time >3 months long, constant fear of running out of "runway" (money), etc. All of this culminated with the company simply stopping paying people for a month before eventually shutting down. I tried one more game company (really just a fb/ios thinly-veiled gambling app) before I quit the industry for good. That was roughly 5 years ago - at this point I'm _just_ starting to re-kindle my love for games and creativity.
For tech workers, I think that making video games is "not a dream job" is an understatement. Except maybe for a select few.
That's what I wanted to do. A short look at what the reality looks like was enough to make me run away really fast.
I suppose the industry manages to lure in new talent who don't know any better, that's how they still manage to get people to work for them despite the terrible conditions. They project an image of an industry that is young (no shit, "old guys" jumped ship long ago) and fun to people who grew up playing video games and want to see the other side.
That's not just the big studios. On the indie side, the good thing is that you are not exploited, the bad thing is that it is even harder, with low chances of success. The only team that I've seen personally and was somewhat successful are the guys who made Crosscode (I highly recommend the game BTW), and the process looked like hard and stressful work. The others ended up doing gigs completely unrelated to game dev in order to eat.
I left an engineering job at a finance startup in the mid 90's to take a "dream job" at a video game startup. It was.. awful: all the fun and creativity was being done by on the production/game design part, and the engineering was... both demanding and boring at the same time.
It was weird realizing I was happier and feeling more creatively engaged when I was figuring out how to price derivatives.
If you're into this topic, I highly suggest How BioWare's Anthem Went Wrong by Jason Schreier, published on Kotaku this week. A deep insight into game development culture, and one particular AAA game. It's a long read (11,000 words), but worth it.
Making video games is a dream job because lots of people want to make video games. Amazing that some people choose jobs for reasons other than high salary, job security, and low stress. Shocking that some people are actually motivated by oh, I don't know, actual interest in an industry!
We can force employers to treat game devs differently via unionization or laws. If people want to discuss these kinds of measures, that's fine. But these people ought to recognize that these regulations will involve trade-offs. If you think the trade-offs are worth it, cool, but please acknowledge them.
My feeling is that highly skilled programmers who are incredibly in demand in every industry do not need unions or special legal protection. They have options. Only by denying the existence of their free will can we pretend that this is a serious problem.
The comments here have a fair number of people baffled at why folks would stay at jobs like this for any period of time. Here’s my thought based on working in games for around a decade; I left after that, in part for quality of life reasons.
For folks that want to work in games, there can be a strong feeling that it is a quixotic quest; there aren’t a lot of jobs relative to the applicants, you’re chasing a dream, and the big places of employment often made the games that made you passionate about everything in the first place.
Once you get that first job, you’re taught that you are not only one of the best, but that you’re lucky to be there. It’s easy to quickly bond with your comrades around the shared, stressful experiences. And to internalize that this is all ok because what quest doesn’t involve some pain?
My first game job was in 2002, and my long, slow falling out of love with the industry started after shipping the first game I’d worked on. Once it had gone gold, we all took a couple weeks at 40 hours a week. After that, I was told by my boss that we all had to go back to 60 hour weeks. I asked why. The answer was, “that’s how we work.”
I got to say, reading the comments as someone who currently works in games, I don't understand why people think there's such a divide. Game development at this point is really not that different from other development. Do some studios suck at management? Yes, do some do management well? Yes. Just like other tech games has it's share of good and bad. Personally I don't work overtime and haven't since my first game job. Some people do, sometimes it's because they're covering for others work, sometimes it's because they want to put something special in they can call their own.
Is games as an industry harder? Probably, games push current tech in every way possible. Does it mean you'll have to work harder to accomplish your goals? Also probably. But with games at least you're trying to do something no one else is most of the time. And when it hits it's something you can be proud of. Not everyone cares about that, but people in games often do.
I resisted spending any time on game development for a long time because I knew deep down how games are consumed extremely quickly. You can spend tons of effort to build a utility app that might prove its value every day for years and years, and may never lose all value. You can spend tons of time and effort developing a game that may become boring to players in a matter of weeks or months and never be used again.
Ultimately I decided that game development is useful for building certain programming skills as a hobby, regardless of the “value curve” of the product. And if you expect nothing (i.e. you’re competing in a huge field of millions of games, nothing is special anymore), you can focus on what you’ve gained, which may be primarily the experience.
I emphasize the hobby part; it’s useful to try it but it’s extremely backwards economically. I would always advise “other” programming jobs, with game dev. on the side.
Game development draws a more artistic developer, I think, and artists are somewhat accustomed to having to give up money and security for doing what they love. Have you ever seen a successful union for musicians? And unions sometimes suck all the creativity and great making out of an industry—-think Detroit in the 70s. I personally would like to see more of the industry spread out across startups, with more employees participating in the stock packages that can potentially create truly life-altering one-time payments in the 6 and 7 figures. But the working conditions are very hard. I’ve accepted that, however, as the price I must pay to focus on what I love to do and get paid well for it.
Jason has done great work exposing the dysfunctional and exploitative parts of the game industry.
However I am not so sure the issues are unique to games; bad management, product re-designs/pivots, underpaid support staff, investors with deadlines and expectations of ROI.
[+] [-] CM30|7 years ago|reply
This is basically the reason for low wages in quite a few 'passion' driven industries. If a job is something enough people want to do, then talent is cheap and plentiful and companies can provide low wages and poor conditions that for every person who quits, ten more are lining up for the 'opportunity'.
You can see this in all manner of arts or entertainment based fields, since there are far more people wanting to become artists/musicians/writers/whatever than there is demand for their services. You can see it in journalism, where in many cases organisations will try and get work done for free, and will pay so little that living off said wages is virtually impossible in a major city if you don't have a trust fund (though admittedly the huge increase in competition from the internet puts pressure there). And I even recall people saying it's one reason teaching wages aren't too high either.
Unionisation may help, but the only practical solution is for people to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of 'passion', and to go where their skills are appreciated/where they're treated better/fairly compensated.
[+] [-] derefr|7 years ago|reply
So the “practical” solution is to change human nature? That doesn’t sound right. It’d be like saying that the practical solution to human trafficking is for people to stop visiting prostitutes; or that the solution to gangs’ drug income is for people to stop buying drugs.
In all these cases, you can quash supply; or you can constrain and regulate the way that the supply supplies, so that it doesn’t hurt people in the process; but—even in the most totalitarian state you can imagine—you can’t quash demand. Humans gonna want what humans gonna want.
In this case, the demand is “the ability to express myself to a huge audience.” People are willing to pay to do that. Because of that, they see any job where they get to do it as a net positive, even if the job is horrible. Because, in essence, they’re taking the original trade they had in mind (paying to reach an audience) and then balancing out an increase in the troublesomeness of doing that, with a payment for dealing with that troublesomeness that moves the needle all the way from “paying for” to “being paid for.”
[+] [-] yomly|7 years ago|reply
More pertinently, I know someone trying to get an entry level role in a similar passion field and is struggling.
Adding to the problem is:
- Passion fields are quite insular and like to only hire from within the industry
- Nepotism is everywhere. In something like art, hiring so and so's son/daughter may cost you $30k but could close you a $10M deal which is good business
- Pulling up the ladder culture: "well I had to go through XYZ to get where I am so I don't see why this new person shouldn't also have to do it and maybe a bit more"
I think the real problem is we've somehow managed to glamorize work as an end rather than a means. Is spending the first 5-10 years of your working career doing grunt work which could be making coffee and doing photocopying really "living the dream"?
[+] [-] doctorpangloss|7 years ago|reply
The supply/demand thing, I wish he omitted because it lets people look at things way too reductionist.
It’s actually very difficult to look at a salary and have that tell you something about supply and demand for a job. It’s obviously not that simple. In particular, it would be impossible to look at that figure and try to make heads or tails of what the “supply and demand” for executives is, because they’re paid so much radically differently. And yet accelerators churn out CEOs every day! You’d point out that I’m asking the wrong question, “it’s not about supply and demand when it comes to executive pay.” I agree, and I don’t think it’s about supply and demand for game developer pay either.
From a strictly economic point of view, the bonus system is very distorting. You get paid a huge bonus if your game gets a lot of units sold after your crunch time. However, since the publishers own the studios now, that doesn’t happen as much, and the bonuses go to the “shareholder” (ie the CEO and other highly stock compensated executives). Seems like exactly the sort of thing a union could negotiate!
But making the low line developer sound like the antagonist? “People to stop taking on terrible jobs because of some sense of ‘passion.’” Like I know you didn’t mean to sound like the bad guy, but is your line of argument really to ignore how economic structures in the industry underpay people, and instead it’s the underpaid people’s fault for being passionate?
[+] [-] Balgair|7 years ago|reply
There are many more people that want to be doctors than there are spots in med schools (US-centric view point here). The AMA artificially keeps the enrollment numbers at med-schools low, so as to drive demand for doctors in general and therefore, increase their wages. The AMA is well aware of the current shortage of pediatricians and over-abundance of cardiologists. Though the employment dynamics of literal brain-surgeons are a bit different teachers or gig-bassists, they do largely follow the same patterns in terms of pay. Granted, most MDs in the US really are very good at their jobs, so I'm not all that put-off when they literally save the lives of my loved ones (money has no value there).
Compare this to nurses and their employment dynamics. Phlebotomists aren't paid badly, but they aren't paid well either. Their shifts are hectic, long, and erratic. Hospice nursing in the US is nearly criminal in it's underpayment and overwork, especially for the emotional labor that goes into it. The reason here is that there is a vast oversupply of people that want to be nurses and in medicine.
The core issue with both cases is that such jobs provide meaning to people that want to do those jobs.
They trade off different things for that value. MDs trade their 20s and a lottery ticket into med school for that meaning in their lives, nurses trade comfort and pay for that meaning in their lives. MDs have what amounts to a very strong union, nurses (generally, but there are many exceptions in the US) do not have as strong of a union.
Generally, any profession that provides meaning in the life of a human will either be very underpaid/overworked OR will have a very strong union/credentialing system to pass before becoming employed. We all regress to the same level of misery.
[+] [-] luiscleto|7 years ago|reply
This. Unionisation is basically an attempt to reject the reality that there isn't enough demand for all that labor to be valuable at/above market-average.
Ultimately I don't think there is a right answer and which way you choose is up to you. But it sounds like a "you can't have your cake and eat it too" situation.
Lucky are those who are passionate about things the majority of the labor pool hates but many businesses need.
Edit: Just to prevent misunderstandings, this is my opinion on Unionisation in this particular industry where there are many (private) companies. It can be a different story if your only employers are not driven by profits and losses or are not in a competitive market (e.g. a government) and I wasn't trying to make a sweeping generic statement like "all unions are always bad"
[+] [-] sokoloff|7 years ago|reply
I worked a couple years in game industry (shipping an auto racing game for Playstation and contributing to a few other titles; I did sleep under my desk a few nights during crunch time so we'd have a demo ready for E3).
My overall experience was amazing. I have a passion for motorsports and loved gaming as a kid. Part of the overall enjoyment (read: value proposition) I derived from that position was that it was in motorsports and gaming. I loved going into a computer store and seeing "my" game on the shelf. I look forward to showing my kids the game [that will look like crap now by comparison]. (I also, without any hard feelings, left the industry because it was clear that it wasn't going to get me where I wanted to be financially.)
I don't think that people should be prevented (or even shamed) for taking on work that they are passionate about. I'm glad I did it; I had some great experiences [spending Speedweek in the hot pits as a business trip is great], worked with some amazingly talented and passionate people, and took away some great memories before moving on(/selling out? :) ).
[+] [-] r_smart|7 years ago|reply
By restricting the supply of talent, thus artificially driving up wages, but at the same time keeping a lot of people from being able to pursue their dream.
[+] [-] SilasX|7 years ago|reply
The canonical example would be window washers on the ground level vs for a high-rise building. The latter -- even with appropriate safety measures -- is scarier, so they make more, as people willing to go up in those things are harder to find.
You can also have a negative compensating differential, where the job is so desirable that people take a lower wage to work in it, which is what's going on in the game industry; compared to developers and QA for other industries, they make less.
Another example might be astronauts, which make a lot less compared jobs requiring similar qualifications (i.e. extensive education, training, memorization, and fitness).
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compensating_differential
[+] [-] watwut|7 years ago|reply
It is changing a bit lately but to large extend, going through deadmarches was/is bragpoint. It gives you credibility and proves you are passionate. Ability to say no and negotiating for good conditions, scope control and good treatment is framed as weakness or laziness.
[+] [-] monsieurbanana|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bsanr2|7 years ago|reply
When people leave for greener pastures, they take their experience with them. There is no one that knows the tricks management uses to squeeze working hours out of employees (often unjustly and unfruitfully). The real solution is to unionize and force management to weed out the incompetence that creates inefficiencies that crunch is used to correct. Contrary to popular belief, unionization has thr potential to increase overall expertise.
[+] [-] crowdpleaser|7 years ago|reply
Many of us working jobs we don't really have 'passion' for are doing it to fund the things we are passionate about.
I really hate it when people talk about how they need public subsidies to follow their self-gratifying dream, like that money comes from people who aren't following their dream. I'm not going to work harder on stuff I don't like to support you having fun.
[+] [-] neves|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] TallGuyShort|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] samstave|7 years ago|reply
Ive known several of this type. And they are terrible at understanding the grueling tediousness it takes to develop a good game.
Basically they operate on the superficial end of things and think they can grok the actual reqs to develop something.
(Same thing with pipe dream “app designers”)
[+] [-] jes5199|7 years ago|reply
This is not a good way to run a society.
[+] [-] conanbatt|7 years ago|reply
1776.
[+] [-] gregcrv|7 years ago|reply
In a basic income society people can do (if they want) the jobs they have a passion for without poor conditions.
And people who will want a higher income will do the jobs that a few people can do (highly skilled jobs..), or wants to do (picking up garbage, cleaning toilets...). These jobs will probably have much better conditions than now.
[+] [-] WalterBright|7 years ago|reply
Being a pilot is not only a dream job, it's high status.
[+] [-] AWildC182|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Quarrelsome|7 years ago|reply
Learn the basics of a trade, THEN you can do Drama. There's this dreamy state of mind that bets way too much on making it and its important that "the worst case scenario" for an actor not making it isn't a dead-end job but a trade/profession they can also excel at.
[+] [-] 3minus1|7 years ago|reply
I've met a lot of girls who want to be fashion designers, and a lot of guys who want to be sports announcers.
[+] [-] munk-a|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] WalterBright|7 years ago|reply
On the other hand, the retirement and health care packages for public school teachers is quite generous
[+] [-] sizzle|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pslam|7 years ago|reply
Where have you been in the last few years, and how have you not learned anything about abusive practices which entrap people? These companies are basically abusive — they abuse their staff with long hours and low benefits, taking full advantage of the cool-factor to entangle them. As anyone who has the slightest empathy and has read anything in the news cycle in the last few years would know, people caught in this situation are often unaware they're being abused, blame themselves, and don't realize there is better elsewhere.
If you're one of the people who are, right now reading this, thinking "That's a load of BS these people are idiots and they deserve what they get", then I implore that you think again and realize you are essentially blaming the victim. That's almost never the right side to be on.
What we need to do is expose these companies for what they really. Put all these things out in the open and air them for all to see. Perhaps at some point we can have all the major studios unionized, and perhaps once their internal cultures become less toxic, their external one will likewise clear up a bit. Here's hoping.
[+] [-] Waterluvian|7 years ago|reply
One lucky thing about game dev is that your skills do transfer. Whether to graphic design or programming or marketing or whatnot. It's not like they got a gamedev license and are locked in.
[+] [-] anm89|7 years ago|reply
The reality is that there are obviously unfair elements to how these industries are operating and it would be desirable to most people to figure out how to improve that situation. It's also a reality that at the end of the day people have a big incentive to understand the big choices they are making in their lives regardless of subjective fairness. Regardless of your moral position it certainly seems they have paid a price for entering the industry and they entered the industry on their own free will(I doubt many people are being coerced into video game dev through threats of violence, blackmail or extortion).
Like literally everything else, the truth lies in the grey area and it's not "appalling" to have other opinions.
The idea of being so unable to believe that there may be validity to an opinion you don't like is a whole lot more appalling in my opinion.
[+] [-] gridlockd|7 years ago|reply
The idea that these people are entrapped is a bunch of nonsense. We're not talking about people that have zero alternatives besides scraping at the bottom of a barrel. We're talking about people that are already well-paid and would be even higher paid if only they decided to switch industries. They can switch jobs and they do switch jobs.
That's simply the truth. It's not victim blaming. The allegation of victim blaming itself is dishonest. These people aren't victims. These people have jobs they don't like. Welcome to adulthood, comrades!
[+] [-] ahaferburg|7 years ago|reply
Excessive overtime and crunch need to be outlawed. It's not a matter of whether or not it's paid, beyond a certain threshold it's a question of health. Nothing will change until people start suing. If companies can just abuse and then terminate people once their lives are ruined, they will continue to do so.
[+] [-] Agentlien|7 years ago|reply
However, I'd also like to add my own data point. I'm someone who grew up dreaming about developing games and taught myself programming as a kid, with the idea of spending my days as a game developer. However, after having heard so much bad stuff about the game industry and then experienced it first hand when doing a summer job at Starbreeze, I decided to stay away from the game industry after I got my Master's.
Nearly four years later, I ended up switching jobs and entering the video game industry (at an EA studio). I've been there for four years, now. Every week I actively turn down headhunters trying to recruit me for all manner of jobs outside of game development. A lot of things could, and should, be better in game development. But all in all, I still love making games and am much happier with my day to day job now than before becoming a game dev.
[+] [-] gavman|7 years ago|reply
That's the crux of this entire article in one sentence. This might be an upopular opinion here, but right now the supply of developers overall [across all industries] is much lower than demand. No one is forcing a developer to work for a game studio. It might be your dream job, but if you're not treated well you're a highly talented skilled worker, go work for someone else. Let the supply diminish because of the working conditions and alternatives and suddenly studios won't have the option to treat their employees this way.
edit: typos
[+] [-] samcday|7 years ago|reply
Man, that really sucks, if you think about it. I'm sure many people here on HN have worked very hard on something in their life. I know I have, and in a couple of cases I ended up being acutely unhappy with the outcomes. But, DAMN, at least none of my moments of extreme toil were punctuated like this.
[+] [-] Tiktaalik|7 years ago|reply
I was a core developer on a major feature of Sleeping Dogs/'True Crime: Hong Kong' for 2+ years. At one point, when the game was still being published by ATVI under the title 'True Crime: Hong Kong', ATVI cancelled the game and 100+ developers were laid off including me. Fast forward a few months and miraculously Square Enix decided to pick up the publishing rights for the name, invested a few more months in polish to finish up the title and released it as Sleeping Dogs. I was of course delighted that this canned game saw the light of day and people were able to play it.
In Sleeping Dogs, despite the significant work I put on the project my name appears in 'Special Thanks' instead of being listed as part of the development team. This is very unfair and inappropriate.
Enforcing a clear set of crediting rules would be one of the things that a game developers union could do.
[+] [-] noego|7 years ago|reply
But I'm very skeptical of the idea that white collar professionals earning well above the median, are somehow in need of "protecting". They have every opportunity to quit the video game industry and take up very lucrative and easygoing jobs in other industries. They are expressly choosing not to do so. That is their choice, and their burden to bear.
Anything that reduces competition in the marketplace is bad for society as a whole. This is why I'm all in favor of anti-trust regulations and breaking up the tech giants. This is also why I'm not a fan of unions. Maybe a case can be made for specially disadvantaged demographics. I just don't see it for programmers.
[+] [-] rubicon33|7 years ago|reply
Programming within the game industry is sliding rapidly toward blue collar, and you'd be a fool to assume the problem is contained. The problem for programmers is simple - Supply and Demand.
Thanks to a massive publicity push from big tech, the public is being sold - hook line and sinker - a story about how we're in a "shortage of developers" and how everyone needs to "learn to code". Combine that with the plethora of boot camps, and online materials, and it's never been easier to pickup JavaScript on a weekend and be coding a website.
I've never seen people shoot themselves in the foot more. For god sakes, you're sawing your foot off at this point. There is now a massive wave of young developers, just getting their footing who will be entering a work force near you in the next 10-20 years. And don't forget about remote workers, they gun for your job too. It's becoming more and more technically feasible for a software shop in the US to hire a dev team based in, I dunno, China. I've seen it happen to a group of incredible devs. At the end of the day, the numbers didn't pencil in their favor.
Ask yourselves if you really think the good times will always roll. Really ask yourself if Obama standing up in front of the nation beckoning for everyone to "Learn to Code" was really good for you, or good for the big tech companies that got him up there? Wake up, and smell the ashes. There are industry and economic forces actively working AGAINST you. Don't help them. Stop parroting the narrative that there is a "shortage of developers", for starters. And hedge your bets while you're at it - get really good at something. Specialize. Maybe it's firmware, maybe it's iOS AR, maybe its machine learning, find something niche, and get world class level good at it. In 15 years, hopefully you'll be one of the few still making "6 figure salaries".
[+] [-] wmil|7 years ago|reply
In the case of programmers, it really doesn't make much sense. There's a lot of BS that can come with unions. They have transferable skills. It's just easier to change jobs.
For more specialized workers a union probably does make sense, eg: 3d artists, game testers.
But I think union organizers are really only interested in the programmers, because they'll probably generate the most dues.
[+] [-] tluyben2|7 years ago|reply
Edit; come to think about it: I made games a few years ago; educational games for government, utilities, zoos and education for money, so a job and that was still fun and really quite a dream job imho. But not big open world fps ofcourse :) Nice 2d games which is like the most anyway.
Edit 2; what I liked about game dev in the 80s and 90s was the limitations of the machines: you could lock yourself up in the basement for weeks, eat and drink and dream optimizations while writing the most rancid (but in my eyes genious) code and in the end ship it and never think about it again. I would say it was far more of an intellectual challenge than (for most devs) now as all was always from scratch; engines did not fit in memory or were just too slow if they they did. Also; there was a clear end to deathmarches: after a while nothing fits anymore and you cannot optimize it further so you ship or just scrap it. Now you can continue forever marching, which must be hell.
[+] [-] erik998|7 years ago|reply
https://www.sagaftra.org/production-center/contract/810/rate...
Daily rates for developers, dbas, qa's and such...
The same guild could make special rate sheets for different stages of a firm. For example SAG has a daily rate sheet for indy films, a software dev guild could have one for startups as well. This could at least prevent abusive startups.
https://www.sagindie.org/signatory/
If you are a star developer equivalent to a celebrity actor, these would just be the minimum rates. There is nothing preventing a studio from paying more.
If anything this would resolve the use of contract labor 1099 misclassifications. If you are good enough to get paid above 120k you could have a loan out corporation and deduct more of your costs while still paying union fees.
https://abspayroll.com/loan-out-companies/
https://firemark.com/2015/01/12/should-you-have-a-loan-out-c...
This wouldn't be a an factory type union. It would be something like a professional union like SAG.
Read the rate sheets to get a better understanding.
[+] [-] ed312|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] GuB-42|7 years ago|reply
That's what I wanted to do. A short look at what the reality looks like was enough to make me run away really fast.
I suppose the industry manages to lure in new talent who don't know any better, that's how they still manage to get people to work for them despite the terrible conditions. They project an image of an industry that is young (no shit, "old guys" jumped ship long ago) and fun to people who grew up playing video games and want to see the other side.
That's not just the big studios. On the indie side, the good thing is that you are not exploited, the bad thing is that it is even harder, with low chances of success. The only team that I've seen personally and was somewhat successful are the guys who made Crosscode (I highly recommend the game BTW), and the process looked like hard and stressful work. The others ended up doing gigs completely unrelated to game dev in order to eat.
[+] [-] rongenre|7 years ago|reply
It was weird realizing I was happier and feeling more creatively engaged when I was figuring out how to price derivatives.
[+] [-] basseq|7 years ago|reply
https://kotaku.com/how-biowares-anthem-went-wrong-1833731964
[+] [-] leftyted|7 years ago|reply
We can force employers to treat game devs differently via unionization or laws. If people want to discuss these kinds of measures, that's fine. But these people ought to recognize that these regulations will involve trade-offs. If you think the trade-offs are worth it, cool, but please acknowledge them.
My feeling is that highly skilled programmers who are incredibly in demand in every industry do not need unions or special legal protection. They have options. Only by denying the existence of their free will can we pretend that this is a serious problem.
[+] [-] commandertso|7 years ago|reply
For folks that want to work in games, there can be a strong feeling that it is a quixotic quest; there aren’t a lot of jobs relative to the applicants, you’re chasing a dream, and the big places of employment often made the games that made you passionate about everything in the first place.
Once you get that first job, you’re taught that you are not only one of the best, but that you’re lucky to be there. It’s easy to quickly bond with your comrades around the shared, stressful experiences. And to internalize that this is all ok because what quest doesn’t involve some pain?
My first game job was in 2002, and my long, slow falling out of love with the industry started after shipping the first game I’d worked on. Once it had gone gold, we all took a couple weeks at 40 hours a week. After that, I was told by my boss that we all had to go back to 60 hour weeks. I asked why. The answer was, “that’s how we work.”
That was when I started looking for a new job.
[+] [-] mrbill29|7 years ago|reply
Is games as an industry harder? Probably, games push current tech in every way possible. Does it mean you'll have to work harder to accomplish your goals? Also probably. But with games at least you're trying to do something no one else is most of the time. And when it hits it's something you can be proud of. Not everyone cares about that, but people in games often do.
[+] [-] makecheck|7 years ago|reply
Ultimately I decided that game development is useful for building certain programming skills as a hobby, regardless of the “value curve” of the product. And if you expect nothing (i.e. you’re competing in a huge field of millions of games, nothing is special anymore), you can focus on what you’ve gained, which may be primarily the experience.
I emphasize the hobby part; it’s useful to try it but it’s extremely backwards economically. I would always advise “other” programming jobs, with game dev. on the side.
[+] [-] makerescape|7 years ago|reply
[+] [-] midnightclubbed|7 years ago|reply
However I am not so sure the issues are unique to games; bad management, product re-designs/pivots, underpaid support staff, investors with deadlines and expectations of ROI.