• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

WSJ: In the $75 Billion Videogame Industry, Hiring People Is a Last Resort

Sylas

Member
Yep, did well there too. Only reason I stopped is I was offered a job at a place I really respected. I certainly didn't make as much money though (but I really enjoy my work). It wasn't in tech though so it may not be the same and I conceed that for sure. I'm sure it doesn't work for everyone but let's not pretend that it's all bad and that both sides don't get some benefits from it.
Anecdotally, I have never made more money as a contractor than I have when salaried. My pay rate is higher, but my taxes and healthcare cost are also higher and that results in a net negative. I daresay that's the norm for many, many contractors unless you're more on the consulting/highly specialized end of the deal. The company I'm with now has a handful of contractors we pay out the ass for, but they've also been in their fields for 20+ years and have experience that very few people have.

I feel comfortable saying that this isn't the norm. My biggest bullshit piece is that very few industries are incredibly busy year-round. There are the slow and busy seasons and yet they manage to keep people on full time that spend a solid 1/2 their day with downtime.
 
It's better if you work on the actual consoles (at MSFT or Sony), because they have other revenue sources and don't hire-fire like game studios. Junior game devs are taken for rides and it makes me sad. The cycle's been going on for many years, and as long as they don't unionize like Hollywood, nothing will change.
 
It's just a sign of the state of the economy. If there was less worry that you were going to have no problem making your money back on a game, with a massive profit, you'd be more likely to hire full-time permanent people, because you wouldn't view the person as a risk, you'd view them as a reliable, long-term asset. If sales are fickle, players quickly forget about your game and move on, and you don't know if your next game is going to be profitable or not, why *would* every hire you make be full-time and permanent?

Game development is cyclical, the entire production cycle of a game doesn't always require the same number of staff, so if you don't have anything else for part of the staff to work on in pre or post production, then you'd have to lay off some of your permanent staff. If you gained the reputation of always laying off 20% or something of your staff every time you shipped a large game, you'd hurt your company's reputation, and you'd also limit your ability to hire good people, because how many people are going to join a company that has a reputation for letting full-time employees go every two or three years?

It's much easier to simply ramp up when needed with contract employees, because when you no longer need a certain number of people, the contract expires, and no one is laid off, they simply find other work, or they take contractual work elsewhere.

Sometimes contract employees get hired into a full-time position, it happens all the time. As stated in the article. It's not all bad.

There's also the issue of giant, mega-publishers vs small publishers/developers, and indie developers. Nintendo, Sony, and MGS for instance employ thousands of full-time developers on a permanent basis. At any given time, there are a dozen or so major projects at varying levels of development. If one large project is finished, then you move some of the staff over to other projects, to get those other projects finished. Not every company has those resources. If you're a tiny developer with two projects, and they both finish within six months of each other, it may be another year or so before you need all 75 staff again. In a case like that, it is perfectly reasonable that you would have a portion of your staff be contracted employees, because they know and you know, that you only need the maximum number of staff when a game reaches a certain level of production.
 
As someone who works for a company that is a service contractor, this is absolutely untrue. I have been with the same organization for just over 20 years, and our benefits are much better than most of the companies we provide services for and we have outlived most of them. Working one step removed instead of direct has some huge advantages if your primary motivator is stability. I assume we are not talking about independent contracting as a single person, since people keep mentioning benefits and tenure. Being in a contractor instead of a direct employee alloys you to fight instability with diversification. We can work on a game asset one day and a piece of bank software the next and a test system for automotive dashboards the next for example.

Many times they will try to headhunt some of the key employees at the end of the contract, which is one of our biggest forms of attrition. Some are happier, some end up coming back or unemployed when things don't turn out.




That may be a good thing for some positions/people/scenarios, but for me personally, I will never, ever work for a union again. Giving up some rights on negotiating your own employment terms is not something that is a universally good. I would not be nearly as well positioned if I couldn't negotiate my own terms.

Sure, you personally. I know more than a few developers who can call their own shots like that, due to their resume or talent. You're probably in a similar boat, and that boat is an outlier.

As far as being able to do anything and everything... in my experience, it takes years to be of any use in my industry. It's just that specialized. We contract out the easy stuff that we don't want to invest our own people for.
 
I'm surprised no one has mentioned Masahiro Sakurai. He's been a temporary, contract employee of Nintendo off and on for... sixteen years?

Like others here have said, there are actually some benefits to being a contract employee vs hired-in. If you're highly skilled and sought after for your expertise, you may have multiple companies making offers because they want you for their next project. You're a free agent, and you can command a higher salary, a more flexible schedule, creative freedom, etc. Being hired in, you have to do what you're told to do, and you only get a raise if someone decides to give you one, and your schedule is probably going to be similar to everyone else's.
 
Contractors are only great for the publishers and studio heads to help them save money. That's it. It absolutely sucks for the employees and this is true of every industry that employees such practices.

I don't think it's helpful or moves the discussion along to make a blanket, absolutist statement that leaves no room for further discussion, or personal opinion.
 
Top Bottom