3 ms·

Also, for a lot of those devs a successful launch of KSP2 is going to be a career booster; they don’t want to walk away from it.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago
But if they worked for Star Theory they would likely benefit a lot more than if they worked for Take Two directly (I believe the article touches on that).
- ashtonkem 6y ago
  For sure, but the former is off the table. So they’ve got to decide which is more valuable to them: finishing KSP2, or the extra comp they could get somewhere else.
- diggan 6y ago
  Guess that depends on your definition of "benefit". As one developer (from the article) puts it: > he didn’t want to work for a big company where he wouldn’t have the same degree of influence or financial benefits if the game were a hit. “I was at a small studio, where the work I did had a massive impact on our success,”
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    As a developer, he would never have had a stake in the financial outcome of KSP2's sales. Didn't he bother to look into the history of the first KSP? The owners made bank (and are still making bank) and many of the developers didn't even make the equivalent of the US minimum wage for their work.
    - simias 6y ago
      The way I read what he said he seems more interested by having his work matter and influence the final game than immediate monetary reward. Given what I keep hearing about the working conditions in the videogame industry it seems like most videogame devs are in it because they like making games and want the reward of telling people "see this cool game everybody plays? Well I made (some) of that!". Otherwise with their skillset they'd probably have no trouble finding work in an other branch of the software industry that'd have better compensation and working conditions, if a lot less cool to explain during parties.
      - Jare 6y ago
        I would think that this engineer's ideas of how things were going to change were mistaken. I don't know the insides of this case, but generally, the impact you have on the game you work on depends on three things: - the trust and empowerment that project leads give non-lead staff - the amount of non-lead stuff with a voice - the ability of said leads to have a say in how the project is run In this case, the leads remained, the project owner (the publisher) remained, and doesn't sound like the staff increased much if at all; so I really doubt things would change much in that sense. Given what happened, someone thought that something in the studio/project had to change, but I just doubt it would be the presence of staff's voice.

Cthulhu_ 6y ago

But if they worked for Star Theory they would likely benefit a lot more than if they worked for Take Two directly (I believe the article touches on that).

ashtonkem 6y ago
For sure, but the former is off the table. So they’ve got to decide which is more valuable to them: finishing KSP2, or the extra comp they could get somewhere else.
diggan 6y ago
Guess that depends on your definition of "benefit". As one developer (from the article) puts it: > he didn’t want to work for a big company where he wouldn’t have the same degree of influence or financial benefits if the game were a hit. “I was at a small studio, where the work I did had a massive impact on our success,”
- gamblor956 6y ago
  As a developer, he would never have had a stake in the financial outcome of KSP2's sales. Didn't he bother to look into the history of the first KSP? The owners made bank (and are still making bank) and many of the developers didn't even make the equivalent of the US minimum wage for their work.
  - simias 6y ago
    The way I read what he said he seems more interested by having his work matter and influence the final game than immediate monetary reward. Given what I keep hearing about the working conditions in the videogame industry it seems like most videogame devs are in it because they like making games and want the reward of telling people "see this cool game everybody plays? Well I made (some) of that!". Otherwise with their skillset they'd probably have no trouble finding work in an other branch of the software industry that'd have better compensation and working conditions, if a lot less cool to explain during parties.
    - Jare 6y ago
      I would think that this engineer's ideas of how things were going to change were mistaken. I don't know the insides of this case, but generally, the impact you have on the game you work on depends on three things: - the trust and empowerment that project leads give non-lead staff - the amount of non-lead stuff with a voice - the ability of said leads to have a say in how the project is run In this case, the leads remained, the project owner (the publisher) remained, and doesn't sound like the staff increased much if at all; so I really doubt things would change much in that sense. Given what happened, someone thought that something in the studio/project had to change, but I just doubt it would be the presence of staff's voice.