4 ms·

> And that's even in tech (video game studio). Given everything I've ever heard about working conditions, pay, and benefits in video game studios, it seems mor

> And that's even in tech (video game studio). Given everything I've ever heard about working conditions, pay, and benefits in video game studios, it seems more appropriate to think of them as opposite to the mainstream software industry rather than a part of it.

brandall10 3y ago
The vast majority of layoffs in tech (not 'big tech' or name brand companies) is likely closer to 1 week than 16 weeks. Sorry to be contrarian, but the only companies that do these bigger packages are doing it because it will be in the news.
- cipheredStones 3y ago
  If you're making a universal claim like that, you are just being contrarian. My last job was at a Series C startup that you've probably never heard of, and when they had to lay off 2/3rds of their employees in late 2020 due to the pandemic, they gave a couple months of severance (don't remember the exact amount, I wasn't laid off) + extended COBRA coverage.
  - brandall10 3y ago
    Still is a series C startup that almost certainly is trying to keep its brand intact up rehire after the uncertainty dissipated. I think you're being unrealistic as to what the industry as a whole is like. 1 week per year is not uncommon. I've been doing this 26 years and have had many dozens of friends laid off during this period, back in 2009, and back during dot com.
    - cipheredStones 3y ago
      On a reread, you'll note that I didn't make any claims about what layoffs are like in the industry as a whole: I implied that pay/benefits/conditions tend to be pretty bad in gaming and pretty good in the rest of tech, and I noted that you're wrong to make a universal statement about only high-profile companies giving severance. I don't doubt your experience, and I don't have a survey of industry standards. But I will also say that experiences 14 or 25 years ago are not a reliable guide to HR choices in the 2023 tech industry.
      - brandall10 3y ago
        I agree they are bad in the game industry, but conveniently ignored was the second part of their post about the non-gaming company... 1 week per year is common, but most common seems to be 2 weeks w/ 1 week per year on top and capped after a number of years. I didn't say only high profile companies gave severance. I'm saying 3+ months is rare and it seems normal because it is a marketing tool used like this. Also to restate, my experience translates to what is currently happening in tandem with the last two periods. I know someone who was recently let go getting 4 weeks after 16 years.
        cableshaft 3y ago
        Not sure I made it clear that the second one wasn't a non-gaming company, but yeah it wasn't (it was webdev). I was laid off from three gaming companies, and haven't yet from any non-gaming companies, even though I've been through more layoff rounds with non-gaming companies now. But my friends have been laid off, and I've yet to hear of any of them getting more than 1 week per year worked. But I don't have any friends that work for big tech (I live in the Midwest, a lot easier to not know anyone in big tech here). A lot of insurance, health, and financial companies around here, not too many Facebook or Apple or Netflix offices.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]
ethbr1 3y ago
The video game industry seems to uniquely suffer from under-trained, nepotistic, and inept project managers and game directors. Which inevitably leads to lying, poor communication, and surprise boom/bust layoffs. In contrast, most other software development industries have figured out how to square the budget-time-people circle, most of the time. It's a shame Rockstar doesn't do more interviews, as they appear to have a working incremental project development model, that reliably (if slowly) delivers results. My suspicion is they just hire/train professional PMs.
- scratcheee 3y ago
  Whilst I won’t deny that incompetent leadership and planning are involved, I think there are structural reasons for the game industry being uniquely problematic. Games have massive cost efficiencies from scaling. Studios are incentivised to always make the biggest games they can with their budget. Games team sizes vary strongly with the project period. They can’t handle more than a small team early and can absorb almost any number of people at any skill level before release. End result is that game development is always boom and bust. Small core teams build a game up slowly, then more and more are added until just before release when a mad scramble for anyone and everyone they can be bought borrowed or stolen to get the game released on time. Then there’s no work except for the core team on the next game. The obvious solution is to have many games running in one studio to even out the team sizes and absorb the crunch, but that implies either studio sizes beyond anything we see currently (and no increase in per project scope) or much smaller scope for games. I’ve seen models like they work, and be much less painful to work with for everyone involved, but it did require different market conditions to justify the alternative model, I’m not sure the entire industry could switch. That’s not to say fixing the problem is impossible, just that the bad incentives will always be there to push back against improvements..
- elmomle 3y ago
  From the people I met at school and worked with since then, the really talented folks who want to make video games _really_ want to make video games. This leads to a fairly natural goal of wanting to set up their own game shops rather than join a large one, where they'll feel they have less impact. I suspect this leads to a trend where you have disproportionately more mediocre product/vision people at the large gaming companies, because if you have really good product sense in a space with as much passion as video games, and with a relatively low barrier to getting your foot in the door (if you have a small core team of very talented, dedicated people), what on Earth are you doing being a cog in someone else's machine?
chefandy 3y ago
It's bad, but to me it seems like at least some notoriously bad ones are making incremental changes.

brandall10 3y ago

The vast majority of layoffs in tech (not 'big tech' or name brand companies) is likely closer to 1 week than 16 weeks. Sorry to be contrarian, but the only companies that do these bigger packages are doing it because it will be in the news.

cipheredStones 3y ago
If you're making a universal claim like that, you are just being contrarian. My last job was at a Series C startup that you've probably never heard of, and when they had to lay off 2/3rds of their employees in late 2020 due to the pandemic, they gave a couple months of severance (don't remember the exact amount, I wasn't laid off) + extended COBRA coverage.
- brandall10 3y ago
  Still is a series C startup that almost certainly is trying to keep its brand intact up rehire after the uncertainty dissipated. I think you're being unrealistic as to what the industry as a whole is like. 1 week per year is not uncommon. I've been doing this 26 years and have had many dozens of friends laid off during this period, back in 2009, and back during dot com.
  - cipheredStones 3y ago
    On a reread, you'll note that I didn't make any claims about what layoffs are like in the industry as a whole: I implied that pay/benefits/conditions tend to be pretty bad in gaming and pretty good in the rest of tech, and I noted that you're wrong to make a universal statement about only high-profile companies giving severance. I don't doubt your experience, and I don't have a survey of industry standards. But I will also say that experiences 14 or 25 years ago are not a reliable guide to HR choices in the 2023 tech industry.
    - brandall10 3y ago
      I agree they are bad in the game industry, but conveniently ignored was the second part of their post about the non-gaming company... 1 week per year is common, but most common seems to be 2 weeks w/ 1 week per year on top and capped after a number of years. I didn't say only high profile companies gave severance. I'm saying 3+ months is rare and it seems normal because it is a marketing tool used like this. Also to restate, my experience translates to what is currently happening in tandem with the last two periods. I know someone who was recently let go getting 4 weeks after 16 years.
      - cableshaft 3y ago
        Not sure I made it clear that the second one wasn't a non-gaming company, but yeah it wasn't (it was webdev). I was laid off from three gaming companies, and haven't yet from any non-gaming companies, even though I've been through more layoff rounds with non-gaming companies now. But my friends have been laid off, and I've yet to hear of any of them getting more than 1 week per year worked. But I don't have any friends that work for big tech (I live in the Midwest, a lot easier to not know anyone in big tech here). A lot of insurance, health, and financial companies around here, not too many Facebook or Apple or Netflix offices.
        deleted 3y ago
        [deleted]

ethbr1 3y ago

The video game industry seems to uniquely suffer from under-trained, nepotistic, and inept project managers and game directors. Which inevitably leads to lying, poor communication, and surprise boom/bust layoffs. In contrast, most other software development industries have figured out how to square the budget-time-people circle, most of the time. It's a shame Rockstar doesn't do more interviews, as they appear to have a working incremental project development model, that reliably (if slowly) delivers results. My suspicion is they just hire/train professional PMs.

scratcheee 3y ago
Whilst I won’t deny that incompetent leadership and planning are involved, I think there are structural reasons for the game industry being uniquely problematic. Games have massive cost efficiencies from scaling. Studios are incentivised to always make the biggest games they can with their budget. Games team sizes vary strongly with the project period. They can’t handle more than a small team early and can absorb almost any number of people at any skill level before release. End result is that game development is always boom and bust. Small core teams build a game up slowly, then more and more are added until just before release when a mad scramble for anyone and everyone they can be bought borrowed or stolen to get the game released on time. Then there’s no work except for the core team on the next game. The obvious solution is to have many games running in one studio to even out the team sizes and absorb the crunch, but that implies either studio sizes beyond anything we see currently (and no increase in per project scope) or much smaller scope for games. I’ve seen models like they work, and be much less painful to work with for everyone involved, but it did require different market conditions to justify the alternative model, I’m not sure the entire industry could switch. That’s not to say fixing the problem is impossible, just that the bad incentives will always be there to push back against improvements..
elmomle 3y ago
From the people I met at school and worked with since then, the really talented folks who want to make video games _really_ want to make video games. This leads to a fairly natural goal of wanting to set up their own game shops rather than join a large one, where they'll feel they have less impact. I suspect this leads to a trend where you have disproportionately more mediocre product/vision people at the large gaming companies, because if you have really good product sense in a space with as much passion as video games, and with a relatively low barrier to getting your foot in the door (if you have a small core team of very talented, dedicated people), what on Earth are you doing being a cog in someone else's machine?

chefandy 3y ago

It's bad, but to me it seems like at least some notoriously bad ones are making incremental changes.