The Problem...Is That Developers Make Too Much?
- Thread starter Thoughtful_Salt
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Here's another idea. Cut marketing pretty much entirely. Let them work with a bit of imagination and what the developers give them, use in game footage or cinematics instead of doing TV ads noone gives a shit about. Stop throwing a huge part of a game's budget on telling people in the most expensive and ineffective way that there's a new game out there.
In a sense, I sort of see what he's saying. We've got some things in the industry that are well paid much. Anyone remember Dead Space 3?
And considering that I mention that, it brings me to my point that in the long run, I don't buy it. The industry is failing because there's too many safe endeavors, controversies up the kazoo, and just the simple fact that AAA development has no idea how to stay afloat other than throwing money at games and expecting to be recompensated in full for a product that may not be all that great in the end.
(I opted to mention controversies as well, as people are trying too hard to please one side or the other without getting it right.)
So there's my take on this article.
And considering that I mention that, it brings me to my point that in the long run, I don't buy it. The industry is failing because there's too many safe endeavors, controversies up the kazoo, and just the simple fact that AAA development has no idea how to stay afloat other than throwing money at games and expecting to be recompensated in full for a product that may not be all that great in the end.
(I opted to mention controversies as well, as people are trying too hard to please one side or the other without getting it right.)
So there's my take on this article.
I think that there should be more teams going without publishers because as we can see in the case of publishers like Activision or EA because they (falsely) believe there is no market for x game therefore completely deny anything that falls out of their 'perfect' formula (shooting and football). The developers are making next to nothing compared to the publishers. There could be such a massive cost cut if they either increase the time that it takes to make the game (by cutting all of these teams) or perhaps start investing in small 'exploratory teams' which release smaller and more artistically free games. Yes these games will be lower income projects but idealistically have drastically cut production costs (thus evening out the profits). Developers are sometimes being too constricted by the publishers, who push for the same 'White, Male, 17-45 and Likes Shooters' demographic that they see as the only existent gamers, which is by todays standards an outdated view. More people are becoming interested in the artistic small scale projects -evidenced by popular artistic projects like Journey, Minecraft and Super Meat Boy, and popular mainstream mobile games like Angry Birds and their developers/publishers Zynga or Popcap (which, lets face it make a lot of revenue and need smaller teams).
This is true, but I also think it must be said that a lot of the publishers and investors are so out of touch with the consumer base that they frivolously spend money on things that are simply not necessary.deadish said:
Multiplayer would be a perfect example. They still haven't figured out that every single game doesn't needs a multiplayer mode. In fact, they often detract from the core experience.
The amount of money they piss away on development costs creating MP for something like say Tomb Raider is just stupid.
Yeah of course not, I was just pointing out that he is being ridiculous to expect people to take less pay just because he thinks it's a "fun" job.Vegosiux said:
Programmer, like football player, make what they are worth. They are worth what someone is willing to pay to get them to work for them instead of someone else. When you factor in benefits and payroll taxes a good developer is worth A LOT of money. However, studios continue to be short of qualified and experienced employees. This means that wages will continue to increase....
If the model changes to decrease the resources that go into a game(as many agree it must) those resources will likely come out of graphics, functionality or features(or a shift to less expensive features). This will mean one of two things. Either less employees and resources will be needed resulting in lower wages and less employment for developers OR more games will be made at less cost with an expectation that more games are purchased by consumers. More than likely it will be a mix of the two.
Things like wages are kind of like a force of nature- they aren't really set by employers, or people attempting to find some kind of abstract value in what a person is worth(football players being paid too much for example). They are set by supply of talent and demand of said talent. This is why football players are paid so much and professions like janitorial work(which can be done by nearly anyone) are paid much lower.
If the model changes to decrease the resources that go into a game(as many agree it must) those resources will likely come out of graphics, functionality or features(or a shift to less expensive features). This will mean one of two things. Either less employees and resources will be needed resulting in lower wages and less employment for developers OR more games will be made at less cost with an expectation that more games are purchased by consumers. More than likely it will be a mix of the two.
Things like wages are kind of like a force of nature- they aren't really set by employers, or people attempting to find some kind of abstract value in what a person is worth(football players being paid too much for example). They are set by supply of talent and demand of said talent. This is why football players are paid so much and professions like janitorial work(which can be done by nearly anyone) are paid much lower.
Games are some of the most complex pieces of software that a member of the general public will run on a home computer. Creating such software requires skilled computer people to create, many of whom could get equally well-paid jobs working for a non-gaming software company. If you drastically lower the pay of game devs, you risk driving away all but the very dedicated and the very bad. And there are a lot more bad programmers than dedicated ones out there.
The problem is, as stated before the money is being spent wrong.
Many games have millions pissed away on marketing when they could easily make a smaller game.
Take a look at the games being funded on kickstarter, if they made games on more of that scale then they could make more, cheaper games and I reckon that they would make larger profits in the long run.
Many games have millions pissed away on marketing when they could easily make a smaller game.
Take a look at the games being funded on kickstarter, if they made games on more of that scale then they could make more, cheaper games and I reckon that they would make larger profits in the long run.
Most game devs are way overworked and underpaid compared to programmers working in other fields. And they have a high turnover rate from quitting for those above reasons. So the problem is the opposite.
In my opinion, most game marketing can be done rather cheaply by word of mouth and youtube anyways. They spend way too much on that end of the game and way to little on the talent that is making the game great. Also, like Obsidian pointed out, AAA games are largely irrelevant to the average dev.
In my opinion, most game marketing can be done rather cheaply by word of mouth and youtube anyways. They spend way too much on that end of the game and way to little on the talent that is making the game great. Also, like Obsidian pointed out, AAA games are largely irrelevant to the average dev.
Exactly this. Also, according to the game dev salary chart that gets reported every year, I'm making less as a 3d artist at my job than the average QA tester, and that's not even getting into the whole "female vs male salaries" thing. Even if those self-reported stats were fairly accurate, I would fully expect the huge cost of living difference in California to mess with those numbers to the point where it makes me in Texas look like a homeless scrub.ThriKreen said:Only a few, and like 100% of the game devs I know.Thoughtful_Salt said:
Suffice to say, like 3 people referenced in the industry with sports cars (the guy surmised to be at Riot, John Carmack and CliffyB) compared to the other 99.99% of the industry isn't the norm. The average salary he references also is based on submissions, is the data itself can't be used as a reference point since it differs based on the cost of living of various places. Obviously San Francisco has a much higher cost of living compared to say, Austin, but a large majority of game studios are in California...so...
And of course, he claims the high salaries are pushed onto the consumers via various costs, nevermind all those things are optional. I think someone worked out that since prices haven't changed much for the past 20 years or so, if you adjusted game prices for inflation they should actually be in the $130 range or something?
Of course, it doesn't factor in that even in our off hours, we're still doing stuff to improve our skills, reading papers on new technology, taking classes, or just practicing at home. We're on the clock all the time.
Or playing other games for research.
This guy just came off as massively butthurt that there's people out there who are making a comfortable living off their hard and skilled work, doing what he wishes he could.
I also liked the part about how many game studios employ "thousands of people", that was a pretty interesting factoid indeed. I also found it ironic that the article itself was surrounded by like 50 ads.
like it or not, this guy had some noble intentions when he wrote this article......the problem is that he targeted the wrong people.
Um no offense but that study is complete BS. Here's why nobody says they buy something because of ads even if they do, because nobody likes to admit that ads work on them but companies wouldn't spend billions on them if it didn't work. Second most people don't even realize ads work on them, it's a subconscious thing that breeds familiarity with a product which makes the consumer more likely to buy it just because they keep seeing it rather then having an objective comparison. So in any survey people are of course going to answer most often that word of mouth or demos sell them on games over ads.SeventhSigil said:
I'm not saying ads don't work in a majority of the market, but you have to consider that it's slightly different in terms of certain games than it is in, say, a Nissan van. You're not going to find people camping on sites to find out the latest news on the newest van in production, won't find people who both own vans talking excitedly about the newest iteration's advances in tire pressure, and word of mouth isn't really going to spread, because I doubt I would ever hear 'Hey, hey, hey! Didja hear?! NISSAN'S MAKING A NEW VAN!" Advertising for toys, perfume, brands of food, restaurants, etc, etc, ETC, is more than acceptable because active public interest is generally low. When was the last time you saw an entire discussion forum devoted to brands of Yogurt, at least one not owned by whatever company makes it? Even in the case of mediums where there is stronger personal interest, such as movies or music, there isn't that same attachment because the first viewing of a film can last a couple of hours, the first listen to a song a couple of minutes, but the Bioshock Infinite Campaign can last five or six hours, longer if you're on 1999 difficulty on second playthough, MUCH longer if you're achievement or trophy hunting. That greater investment of time can lead to a greater attachment, and heightened interest in actively seeking out new experiences, as opposed to waiting for someone else to talk about them.doomed89 said:
Gaming often works differently than laser eye surgery spots, Doritos or Pepsi, because much of that advertisement can be provided by the community. I see a video preview of The Division because I keep track of a gamer-catering site, I get super excited and poke at my gaming friends saying; "GUYS! We must get this when it comes out!" They see it, and either become interested in purchasing, not interested at all, or similarly excited and go off to tell the gamer friends they know. Look at Minecraft, a game that climbed its way from complete obscurity without any sort of advertising budget whatsoever, on the backs of game journalism articles, word of mouth, and eventually due to its huge popularity, publishing on the Xbox 360.
It's been estimated that the publisher of Battlefield 3 might have spent as much as fifty MILLION dollars on advertising. For the THIRD installment of a very popular franchise that every established gamer already knows about, and new gamers will quickly get drawn out of ignorance if they pay the slightest attention to upcoming games, or have friends that do. D'you really think that the publisher's $50,000,000 brought in enough brand new players who never would have heard about the game without that advertisements? Do you think it really would have brought in 1.8 million new players on launch day, players that never would have purchased it without slow-motion explosions in TV ads and website banners?
Haha fuck no. More like Publishers pay themselves way too much. Bobby Kotick is apparently worth 1 billion dollars. What a fucking joke.
I'm so damn tired of the parasites at the top and their tools constantly whining that they have to pay workers anything over minimum wage while the average CEO makes 380 times their average employee in wages(http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/19/news/economy/ceo-pay/index.htm). The income disparity is just disgusting. I don't care what your job is, it isn't worth 100 times what some guy scrubbing toilets/digging ditches for 60+ hours a week. Only way i can see justifying that is if someone single-handedly cured cancer or something that actually moved us as a species forward in some real way.
I always thought that game developers were actually fairly under-paid. Hell, its one of the reasons why I actually don't really want to get into designing games as a job, but if the pay is actually fairly decent, I may look into it once I'm out of college. As it stands, I'm just going to get a normal job for some tech company and maybe develop some small flash or browser-based games on my freetime.
Absolutely not. In fact in other mediums that use similar skills game developers actually make considerably less then they otherwise would with the same education in other fields.
The problem with costs vs selling the products is the budgets involved. As we've seen with a slew of AAA games this year you can not pump multi-millions of dollars into a title and expect it to sell 5 million copies. It just doesnt work. Instead you have to figure out an audience to target and then budget and market it accordingly. Thats the issue with AAA developers
The problem with costs vs selling the products is the budgets involved. As we've seen with a slew of AAA games this year you can not pump multi-millions of dollars into a title and expect it to sell 5 million copies. It just doesnt work. Instead you have to figure out an audience to target and then budget and market it accordingly. Thats the issue with AAA developers