8 ms·
No one is buying a game because Joe Programmer worked on the network stack. People often see movies simply because they like the lead actor/actress. Additionall
by EpicEng 8y ago
No one is buying a game because Joe Programmer worked on the network stack. People often see movies simply because they like the lead actor/actress. Additionally, programmers are not directors, and the vast majority of them are not akin to movie stars. This analogy fails on many levels.
- metalliqaz 8y agoBut it doesn't necessarily mean that devs aren't underpaid for what they produce.
- kbar13 8y agoYes, but devs are a lot more replaceable than stars, whose faces and performance represent the movie
- stcredzero 8y agoAre they, though? It's more that the causal connection is more obvious. The audience can immediately see the face has changed. However, bugs and missing features are just as loudly complained about. It just takes longer to notice, and the audience lingers on in dissatisfaction a bit longer. People caught onto this in comic books, however. There are savvy readers who follow writers and artists, not characters. There are savvy fans of Anime who do this as well. There are even people who do this with books and movies. There are some gamers who do this with games. Same old story. There are those fooled by surfaces, and those who try to see beneath them.
- krapp 8y ago>There are savvy readers who follow writers and artists, not characters. There are savvy fans of Anime who do this as well. There are even people who do this with books and movies. There are some gamers who do this with games. Yes, but game developers aren't the ones doing the art, or writing, for games.
- stcredzero 8y agoMovie directors aren't necessarily the ones doing the art, or writing for movies.
- the_duke 8y agoBut a movie director is akin to a top level management position, not a regular developer.
- stcredzero 8y agoFor projects of a comparable size, the lead programmer or VP of development has a commensurate affect.
- roenxi 8y agoWe don't pay people based on 'effort'. We pay people based on their output, in particular their ability to take create situations where money changes hands. If somebody thinks they can get more money with less effort then we want them to try working that way instead.
- stcredzero 8y agoWe pay people based on their output, in particular their ability to take create situations where money changes hands. In other words, corporations make a cost/benefit calculation. In the case of software developers and lead software developers, my experience is that most corporations can concretely read the dollar amount as cost, but often drastically underestimate the potential cost of bad software. There are situations where many people are valued below market for a long, long time. Markets aren't omniscient and infinitely fast.
- arkem 8y agoAt the game studios that I'm familiar with the term "game developer" refers to anyone working on the game and not just the programmers. So an artist or writer would generally be considered a game developer but the studio's accountant and CEO would probably not be considered game developers.
- EpicEng 8y agoDoesn't mean that they are either. The entire premise of the comment I responded to was built on faulty analogies.
- gnopgnip 8y agoThis is the big problem with forming unions. Those who are in the best position to bargain are generally happy the way things are, even if they could be better. And those who have the most to gain have little leverage. The junior devs and QA are expected to put in 70+ hour weeks without extra compensation. Unlike other industries where developers work in gaming it is common to layoff much of the staff during preproduction at a gaming studio, and then attempt to hire them back on later, or layoff staff after a release is finished.
- honkycat 8y agoYeah, exactly this. Even games released by superstars like Edmund Mcmillen have flops. The culture around game designers isn't to this point YET.
- siffland 8y agoBack in the 80's with Sierra Games and Ultima and others, I DID buy the game because someone worked on them. Sid Meyer Christy Marx Richard Garriott Well at least i did anyway. Maybe i am alone in this.
- fx1994 8y agoHmm, I bought every single game developed by John Carmack...
- EpicEng 8y agoAnd Carmack is worth $40M, so I guess it's working?
- njharman 8y agoThat is low. Really!? I would think his net worth was a lot more than that.
- Skunkleton 8y agoIgnoring the ridiculous sums that some people are worth, doesn't $40 million seem reasonable?
- simonh 8y agoIt depends. If he was significantly more wealthy, he'd have more opportunities to fund new projects and companies. Imagine Steve Jobs had been worth only a few million back in 1986 (who really needs more than that, right?), he wouldn't have been able to found NeXT, or bankroll Pixar. Funds flowing to proven creators, successful entrepreneurs and shrewd investors is a good thing because those are exactly the people who know how to deploy those assets productively. Having said all that, I've no idea specifically about Carmack.
- Skunkleton 8y agoThat's a good point. Seems like a bit of a hole in the system though. Why does it have to be so hard for an organization succeed without an existing connection to success? If Steve hadn't funded Pixar, then we wouldn't have gotten a bunch of cool stuff. I would guess there are hundreds of Pixars that had no Steve. Of course there is no obvious answer to this problem, and the system we have is way way better than what was available historically.
- rock_hard 8y agoWhat about the Artists that worked on the game?
- EpicEng 8y agoWhat about costume designers, VFX artists, lighting and sounds techs, etc? They're not getting paid millions.
- Tiktaalik 8y agoPeople don't buy shitty, janky, buggy games. There's a relationship between janky games and bad software engineering.
- the_duke 8y agoPeople also don't watch movies with crappy camera work, bad audio or laggy animations. Yet I don't think cameraman make millions on a movie.
- chongli 8y agoNobody is watching a movie because Jim Gaffer designed the lighting rigs, yet Jim Gaffer is protected by a union and Joe Programmer is not. You don't have to be a star in order to collectively bargain, you just need to organize with your colleagues.
- cheeze 8y agoYeah, but framing this as an issue in the gaming industry is disingenuous. A lack of unionization is a problem in programming in general, not just video games.
- chongli 8y agoYes that's true, although sometimes it seems like game programmers are exploited due to their passion for video games.
- EpicEng 8y agoThere's definitely exploitation, but it's also market forces at play. When you have a never ending stream of devs who can't wait to work for you, well, you don't have to pay as much.
- eterm 8y agoThere's a never ending stream of aspiring actors and writers too. Forming a union has offered them some protection from being exploited by studios and perhaps game developers should do the same.
- zozbot123 8y ago> Forming a union has offered them some protection from being exploited by studios If the Weinstein scandal is any indication, no it hasn't. Unions are not without their problems, while more widespread awareness about the actual working conditions in any given industry (be it acting or game development) is highly effective, one way or the other. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.