3 ms·
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 h
by 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 agoI 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.