5 ms·

You got out before you found your limit. You think you could have sustained it, but you really don't know because you left. But leaving also means something. A

by bena 8y ago

You got out before you found your limit. You think you could have sustained it, but you really don't know because you left. But leaving also means something. And succeeding in the face of adversity is something to be proud of. There are many things I wouldn't change in my life even though they were difficult or caused me to struggle. That's not the point. If I could have learned all I learned, got to where I am, etc _without_ having to struggle, that would have been preferable. The struggle itself imparts no value. I mean, would you rather have not had to crunch to get the demo out on time? Would you rather have hit all of your targets on time without working ridiculous hours?

sokoloff 8y ago
> Would you rather have hit all of your targets on time without working ridiculous hours? I don't know. Would I have rather run a 15 minute 2-mile instead of a 13:30 2-mile on my APFT in college and been less sweaty? Would I have rather gotten a B instead of an A on that digital design project while getting more sleep? (Obviously, no one but me could possibly really "care" about either of those scores at this point.) Taking it specifically to that work topic, would I rather have worked sane hours and shipped an acceptable demo on time or worked ridiculous hours and shipped a stronger demo on time? Even though I know that nothing about my life changed as a result of the latter (because we didn't exceed our minimum units sold for the "monkey points" to pay anything), I'm happy I spent those nights in a sleeping bag at my cube and shipped the best demo and product we could. For things that I care about at the time, I feel happier and more proud in doing more than the minimum (perhaps even my best), even at the expense of extra time and effort for which incremental compensation isn't tightly/directly linked.
- mntmoss 8y ago
  That argument is suggesting a linear correllation of effort to results, which isn't really so with creative work: in a hypothetical "better industry", because talent is more expensive and less exploitable, management has to step up, grow beyond cheerleader/slavedriver metaphors, and find ways to create more force multipliers throughout the project. Quality to effort ratio goes up -- and given a sufficiently high multiplier, the workforce produces more while working less. I think this is eminently possible within games, and the growing interest in unions is reflective of agreement of that fact, of a desire to professionalize and negotiate towards work arrangements that follow what our current science tells us is best practice. If most game workers believed in linear effort to reward they would see the status quo as OK: not staying late would simply mean you lack "passion". And indeed, that was very much the case throughout the early history of the industry - passionate people who became bosses and focused in Panglossian fashion only on the particular metrics they prized, resulting in exploitative, fanboy-heavy, butt-in-chair workplaces.

by bena 8y ago

sokoloff 8y ago

> Would you rather have hit all of your targets on time without working ridiculous hours? I don't know. Would I have rather run a 15 minute 2-mile instead of a 13:30 2-mile on my APFT in college and been less sweaty? Would I have rather gotten a B instead of an A on that digital design project while getting more sleep? (Obviously, no one but me could possibly really "care" about either of those scores at this point.) Taking it specifically to that work topic, would I rather have worked sane hours and shipped an acceptable demo on time or worked ridiculous hours and shipped a stronger demo on time? Even though I know that nothing about my life changed as a result of the latter (because we didn't exceed our minimum units sold for the "monkey points" to pay anything), I'm happy I spent those nights in a sleeping bag at my cube and shipped the best demo and product we could. For things that I care about at the time, I feel happier and more proud in doing more than the minimum (perhaps even my best), even at the expense of extra time and effort for which incremental compensation isn't tightly/directly linked.

mntmoss 8y ago
That argument is suggesting a linear correllation of effort to results, which isn't really so with creative work: in a hypothetical "better industry", because talent is more expensive and less exploitable, management has to step up, grow beyond cheerleader/slavedriver metaphors, and find ways to create more force multipliers throughout the project. Quality to effort ratio goes up -- and given a sufficiently high multiplier, the workforce produces more while working less. I think this is eminently possible within games, and the growing interest in unions is reflective of agreement of that fact, of a desire to professionalize and negotiate towards work arrangements that follow what our current science tells us is best practice. If most game workers believed in linear effort to reward they would see the status quo as OK: not staying late would simply mean you lack "passion". And indeed, that was very much the case throughout the early history of the industry - passionate people who became bosses and focused in Panglossian fashion only on the particular metrics they prized, resulting in exploitative, fanboy-heavy, butt-in-chair workplaces.