Trogdor1123
Member
Don't see the issue here, this provides flexibility to both parties. This is the wave of the future in lots industries and its not all bad news.
-
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
- Thread starter ggx2ac
- Start date
The flexibility of no job security, worse benefits, and no retirement plan?
git gud IRL
you are protected by how much you are paid and how you much you can work but there is no guaranteed work, it is very much project based.
Game development is very cyclical. They dont need the same amount of employees through the 3 years of development, and once game is out, most of the artists and qa are not needed until another game is near the end of the development.
quite often their future projects dont pan out and then they have to fire a lot of people or even close the studio... we often have news of studio closures and then it is death industry while now it is ruthless profit generator.
Gotdatmoney
Member
Being a contractor is not ideal for an entire work force.
BigEmil
Junior Member
" - Panic Button LLC of Austin, Texas were contracted to port Rocket League to PS4 and Xbox One. They have 25 employees working with as many as six clients at a time "
Psyonix did the PS4 version themselves.
However the PS4 Pro version was done by Panic Button, the same people who did the Xbox One port.
Psyonix did the PS4 version themselves.
However the PS4 Pro version was done by Panic Button, the same people who did the Xbox One port.
Trogdor1123
Member
And likely higher pay to compensate these items. I deal with contractors literally everyday ( different industry mind you) and they do very well, they pick their jobs and bid appropriately to provide services. It works for a both parties. Flexibility in the games idustry isn't a nice to have either. It's a must.
In addition, retirement plans are a joke. Set your own up.
I would agree but It's not the entire workforce. No one is saying that.
Emperor_Uriel
Member
This is everything now, not just games. The more successful a company/service is, the more of the profits are siphoned up by the executives/administrators.
My school district is one of the wealthiest in the country, and yet we'd still rather pay our admins 200k+ a year than hire a few more clerical workers, teachers and counselors.
The recession taught a whole generation of leaders how to squeeze the most out of part-time and temporary workers. And this is before the automation crisis that looms over the upcoming decade.
My school district is one of the wealthiest in the country, and yet we'd still rather pay our admins 200k+ a year than hire a few more clerical workers, teachers and counselors.
The recession taught a whole generation of leaders how to squeeze the most out of part-time and temporary workers. And this is before the automation crisis that looms over the upcoming decade.
Okay, it's corrected.
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
Listen, I wish everyone was millionaires who didn't have to work and game devs got to work relaxing schedules with 2000 people per game so they came out within reasonable timeframes.
However in reality -
I don't want $200 dollar games with more microtransactions just to support the tripling of game development costs. My anecdotal tale is that I know for a fact that game devs get paid fine. (In the US anyway) However if they don't like it there's a multitude of other tech careers they can flex (which, once again, one of my friends did since he didn't like the crunch!)
your trolling right?
(source)
you have to be?
sure we aren't playing 200$ (yet) but its far from ideal.
edit:
one more, just cuz.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1359530
AgentOtaku
Member
Gross
ItsTheNew
I believe any game made before 1997 is "essentially cave man art."
You're trolling right? You know that publicly traded companies can't just suddenly double (triple?) their operating costs and expect stock owners to stick around as they watch their investment shrink, right? All your examples showed that at this point companies are trying to max their profits at the $60 level and still falling short of sales goals...dramatically increasing the costs of an already expensive industry will just mean double priced games, even more dev houses closing, etc. No thanks.your trolling right?
(source)
you have to be?
sure we aren't playing 200$ (yet) but its far from ideal.
edit:
one more, just cuz.
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=1359530
Capitalism sucks, but I'm sure those dev's will still enjoy their fairly high paying jobs in non back breaking environments.
your trolling right?
It should probably be noted that those are Canadian prices. Destiny + Season Pass + Taken King was like $135 USD if you bought everything when it launched. Which over the course of the game's first 15 months hashes out to like $9/month. I feel a little sorry for the people that bought the Season Pass blind before they'd even played Destiny, but at the same time that's a foolish move. Anybody who enjoyed Destiny and continued to play got their money's worth though.
That would be best yes. A few years of stability followed by layoffs is much better than zero stability.
Aren't both similarly unstable? 😐
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
so what, fuck the little guy, i as long as i get games on the low? so i can get into shitty demos disguised as "beta" tests? so you can pay for Redbull cans for crates and shit? companies have been trying nickle and dime you for a while now. and all you can say is "Capitalism sucks". all i was trying to do was exemplify that we are well past the days of "60$" games.
i live in Canada. i understand 135 is 177 in cad. but its still alot of money to ask of anyone. and i am not gonna sit here and say "i feel sorry for anyone who pre ordered destiny" or if it was "worth it". but you can't disagree that destiny for the most part has had a "troubled" past.
ItsTheNew
I believe any game made before 1997 is "essentially cave man art."
I'm not entirely sure what you are disagreeing with me on. As a consumer, it works best the way it is now. If you think that publishers go overboard nickle and diming you, imagine the really fun creative ways they would have to charge you if game dev costs tripled.
Do you disagree with that ?
If you want to disagree with what devs get paid, then go ahead. I think they get paid pretty damn well and get to live in some of the nicest places in the US to do their craft. Ask anybody working any job if they should get paid more, they'll probably say yes.
blame space
Banned
I'm pretty sure video games are a net negative for humanity. Even with the good ones.
ShadowFox08
Member
This is how the industry is nowdays unfortunately for nearly every field. Especially tech.
ShadowFox08
Member
Have you even worked as a contractor dude? Seriously... man.
No benefits, job security, or 401k or pensions. It's shit man. I've worked 2 years in the tech industry working for contract positions. The Healthcare that contracting agencies offer is the same as ACA, which is pretty expensive if you're not on medicad. It doesn't help that there's more people now with degrees and you have to compete with them(what can you do). It gets insanely competitive. Imagine working two years without a permanent job offer from an insanely competitive industry and see what it does to your morale. Like you're not even good enough. Oh and of course contractors often get treated like second class citizens compared to fte employees.
This is the corporate world we live in. Corporate wants to save money by hiring a bunch of set contractor positions that will never become fulltime unless somebody leaves, or if they get really big(but even then, it would only be a few more fte positions). It's not impossible to become FTE of course, but you'd have to kiss some ass along the way, which not everyone wants to do.
With Destiny, Bungie was always in this weird, uncharted territory of trying to be a Live/MMO game that could continue to serve the varying needs of its player base (grinders, PVPers, raiders, etc) without implementing a subscription fee. At the same time they'd obviously promised Activision that their game was going to be like World of Warcraft -- a reliable, regular revenue generator that could be expected to bring in money year-round. I don't think they always made the best decisions, but most people would agree that they have done some good course-correction from where they started.
If your point was just that "We're beyond $60 games", then I agree. Though I think it was clear that we went beyond an all-encompassing $60 purchase just as soon as titles like Halo and CoD started offering map packs. By and large though, I'm okay with games that offset development costs by extracting more money from the hardcore players (assuming that it doesn't really affect the balance of a game, or offer those that pay more an advantage over base-level players).
n0razi
Member
It kind of makes sense in today's market where one title can make or break a company. It's almost pointless to have fulltime staff working more than one title unless you have Blizzard's track record.
There's really no other way to do it for modern games which have multi million dollar financial targets. Unless you want the industry going back to having sub million dollar budgets (ie say goodbye to Breath of the Wild).
There's really no other way to do it for modern games which have multi million dollar financial targets. Unless you want the industry going back to having sub million dollar budgets (ie say goodbye to Breath of the Wild).
Complex Shadow
Cudi Lame
If you honestly believe all that. Then I am not going to change your mind.
Edit:
I mean it's hard to screw up when the bar is so low the only direction is up. I still remember that Jeff rant from goty podcast. I actually felt sad because how right he was. Anyways that's anecdotal and besides the point. Also I am not trying measure when it started. Just stating the current state of affairs.
I met a guy who play tested one of the Call of Duty games back in the PS2/Xbox/Gamecube era.
His takeaway for game play testing, "Don't do it. If you do, you will learn to hate video games."
Now he works on doing some comedy show improv thing.
Reportedly some Halo voice actors are on strike (important characters, too).
His takeaway for game play testing, "Don't do it. If you do, you will learn to hate video games."
Now he works on doing some comedy show improv thing.
Reportedly some Halo voice actors are on strike (important characters, too).
I mean Psyonix was a contract studio before Rocket League. Gearbox did contract work too. In my industry we hire freelancers all the time. Most of the production crew is freelance and the actors basically do it as a side job. I think conditions can definitely be better in the gaming industry just not sure if unionizing is the right way to go about it. I can easily see games being more expensive and studios willing to take less risk, and if publishers can't afford to wait extra time to develop games then games may become smaller too, that or they'll go mostly service based. Imagine CoD or madden being $5-10/mo.
My experience is that the VG industry started using contractors starting with the Playstation 2, when the demand for art assets increased significantly. For the PS1, you could make console games with a staff of 20. When you need to have a staff of 50 to 100 to make a game, it was unlikely that a studio could afford that many employees, especially with the risks of the industry. Also, companies also don't usually hire 100 individual contractors - they contract with a company that specializes in art, for instance, and that company has 100 artists. This is generally true for the console world, but I don't think it's true in the app world, since the team sizes are smaller. I bet Clash of Clans or Clash Royale was done completely in-house.
crustybooger
Member
Sadly this happens in most industries now. I work in telecom and one of my responsibilities is hiring new employees for my team. The recession accelerated a bad trend where the mentality changed to trying to do more with less and less to maximize profits. I use to be able to request an increase in headcount and it would just need approval from my boss. Now it's become a nightmare where I have to justify it with my boss, hr, accounting, and finally upper management.
Just this past spring I lost 4 engineers due to transfers and or retirement. I requested to back fill those openings plus an additional position. I've finally gotten approval last month to hire on 3 more employees but I was given a budget just enough for 2 and a temporary employee/contractor. My colleagues are going thru similar situations. This coming from one of the largest companies in the US that just got done spending 50 billion dollars less then 2 years ago buying another company and now they're trying to spend another 80+ billion buying out another company....
Just this past spring I lost 4 engineers due to transfers and or retirement. I requested to back fill those openings plus an additional position. I've finally gotten approval last month to hire on 3 more employees but I was given a budget just enough for 2 and a temporary employee/contractor. My colleagues are going thru similar situations. This coming from one of the largest companies in the US that just got done spending 50 billion dollars less then 2 years ago buying another company and now they're trying to spend another 80+ billion buying out another company....
You might have a huge persecution complex.
It's weird to read this article since I'm going to a job interview for a Tech Support division position in the games industry today :-|
And_Gignac
Member
Ah, the end of capitalism is near.
Um...good luck.
thomasmahler
Member
Hmm, I don't think it's fair to look at the number of contractors games studios employ to come to the conclusion that studios don't like to hire folks.
The fact of the matter is that a lot of times with things like Art, you see a persons portfolio and think he could contribute some work to your project, then you reach out and contract him or her to do just that: Deliver a few models or paintings without that person directly behind hired, having to relocate and all that stuff. There's a TON of freelance artists out there who vastly prefer freelance work over a full-time position at a studio, simply cause they can make more money that way and get to work on a variety of things instead of having to spend 3+ years on a single project making very similar things.
As a freelance artist, you also get to charge freelance rates, which usually are quite a lot higher than if a person is on-staff, so the conclusion here shouldn't be that studios that hire contractors do that because they're evil, it just often makes a lot of sense for both parties to work this way instead of having to have the person relocate, get a visa for them and go through all that trouble when they are able to actually do all the work in the same way from their home office. As long as both parties are happy, it's all good - At least that's how I see it
The fact of the matter is that a lot of times with things like Art, you see a persons portfolio and think he could contribute some work to your project, then you reach out and contract him or her to do just that: Deliver a few models or paintings without that person directly behind hired, having to relocate and all that stuff. There's a TON of freelance artists out there who vastly prefer freelance work over a full-time position at a studio, simply cause they can make more money that way and get to work on a variety of things instead of having to spend 3+ years on a single project making very similar things.
As a freelance artist, you also get to charge freelance rates, which usually are quite a lot higher than if a person is on-staff, so the conclusion here shouldn't be that studios that hire contractors do that because they're evil, it just often makes a lot of sense for both parties to work this way instead of having to have the person relocate, get a visa for them and go through all that trouble when they are able to actually do all the work in the same way from their home office. As long as both parties are happy, it's all good - At least that's how I see it
Wolfgunblood Garopa
Member
I'm a software developer (not in the entertainment industry), but I feel like I'm one of the lucky ones, I found a pretty cushy spot at a company that offers job security on top of the work itself being pretty interesting. Contractors are a big part of the picture in my industry, so it's not like the game industry is doing too much differently. It's not easy navigating the challenges that skill positions like software development will throw at you in today's job market. It's a competitive market, but not for the faint of heart that's for sure. We need our government to reflect our reality and provide the appropriate programs to allow us to succeed in this complicated environment, most significantly healthcare, education costs and student loan relief. Voting for Republicans is not helping.
heh, my developer friends who bounce from job to job are constantly rolling.
I don't know how they do it. I don't think I could do it.
heh, my developer friends who bounce from job to job are constantly rolling.
I don't know how they do it. I don't think I could do it.
ScatheZombie
Member
Yes, I strongly disagree. Why would game dev costs triple? Developer salaries are actually a relatively small portion of game development costs. I don't think you realize how much of a game's budget goes to marketing, how much it costs to operate a studio, how much AAA companies pay in licensing fees for middleware solutions, how much things like localization cost, how much publishers pay in legal fees to their retainer lawyers, how much support staff that isn't development is paid, etc.
As I said earlier, you clearly have no idea what you are talking about. You kind-a know a couple of devs and think they make good money. But that's like bringing a snow-ball to a Climate Change debate. There's a mountain of literature out there that paints a very different picture. I worked in AAA for almost a decade and know literally hundreds of developers. Sure, some of the leads and middle-management pull six figures, but that's nowhere near the average or typical. A typical developer makes an average somewhere between $50-$70k (programmers skew a little bit higher), depending on the survey; but then you remember that's mostly in LA, SF, and Seattle. When you factor in cost of living, they're making shit. When you factor in they make that much and work 60, 70, 80 hours a week, they're making like $8 a fucking hour or less.
So, please, take your ignorant bullshit and kindly fuck right off with that nonsense.
Trogdor1123
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.
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.
Glendemonium
Member
This will forever leave a bitter taste in my mouth for as long as I breathe.
So called "game dev" schools will NEVER tell you this, but you learn real quick that at the end of the day you're just a grunt who will work long hours for as little as they want to pay you. They'll always advertise "BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY!" as the impression that game devs make bank, but in reality contractors(EDIT: The guys who find you the work) and execs (the guys at the top) are the ones who benefit.
A programmer could make more money somewhere else, but a writer, an artist (be it art, music, what have you)? There are so many artists these days there's hardly enough work to go around.
And yeah, there needs to be a union. Unfortunately I don't ever see that happening.
So called "game dev" schools will NEVER tell you this, but you learn real quick that at the end of the day you're just a grunt who will work long hours for as little as they want to pay you. They'll always advertise "BILLION DOLLAR INDUSTRY!" as the impression that game devs make bank, but in reality contractors(EDIT: The guys who find you the work) and execs (the guys at the top) are the ones who benefit.
A programmer could make more money somewhere else, but a writer, an artist (be it art, music, what have you)? There are so many artists these days there's hardly enough work to go around.
And yeah, there needs to be a union. Unfortunately I don't ever see that happening.
Oh. Oh god. This could affect the cherished franchise Zelda?
Sub contracting is the norm for many industries in various fields and professions. Heck, I work for a very small Architectural office (only 2 architects) and our work are often sub-contracted from bigger firms to do feasibility studies on said upcoming design projects.
Nothing wrong with that, except that many of these contractors are paid peanuts which is the problem.
PhillMeCream
Member
Actually that going for every job
Luckily I'm hired in at my job but we have temps come in and do the same job for way less benefits and pay. Wished I would had gone to school to be a doctor or something
Luckily I'm hired in at my job but we have temps come in and do the same job for way less benefits and pay. Wished I would had gone to school to be a doctor or something
Chmpocalypse
Blizzard
This is why I'm so glad Blizzard is different. Didn't have to deal with any of that contractor bullshit, just got hired as staff at the start. It's a company that knows doing right by its employees pays off.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Wow! What's the worse downside to the industry being like this.
The Albatross
Member
I don't think this is true. Management and executive salaries at even big videogame companies are well below management and executive salaries at comparable non-gaming software companies.
I honestly don't understand the incentives for anybody to get into videgame development at any level, other than that you love videogames or interactive storytelling. Developers, QEs, managers, and executives work longer hours, get paid less, have less job security, and have comparable benefits to identical positions in other areas of the industry.
But, also just the decree that developers/talent should unionize can't work. Hollywood is thoroughly unionized because they formed those unions when the industry was small, when talent was scarce, and new labor was more accepted than it is today. There are too many publishing and development houses today, the industry is huge and multi-national, and talent (worldwide) is easy to come by. It's still an employees market for American-based talent, but the ability for developers (even small developers) to outsource specific tasks to contractors and off-shore developers is too compelling to effectively start a union, not to mention the public has less tolerance for new labor than it did 80 years ago.
Taliban Stan
Member
Nah, nah, see what's going to happen is that those companies with their CEOs will make the $75B and then it'll all trickle down so everyone eats.
The people mislabeling employees as contractors with an attitude "then fuck off and quit if you hate this" are the ones who will be doing the trickling. I'm sure it'll all work out perfectly.
The people mislabeling employees as contractors with an attitude "then fuck off and quit if you hate this" are the ones who will be doing the trickling. I'm sure it'll all work out perfectly.
Mihos
Gold Member
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.
radioactivez0r
Member
My dad thinks I'm crazy foolish for even considering a contract-to-hire position instead of trying to find something where I'm already employed full time with a pension. I'm trying to change my career path and there just aren't any opportunities here to do that, and contract work of any type is just the norm in IT now, unless you are in government. It is what it is. I don't think I could deal with the anxiety of jumping from job to job while raising my kids, though.