Spacebase!

[Merus]

That's kind of what the Zomboid guy was arguing, that if you start an EA game, you are ethically obligated to finish it no matter what kind of hardship it creates for you...which is a really problematic thing to argue for me. 

 

I think the Project Zomboid guys are a little on the extreme end because I think pretty much everybody would have excused them when they had their game and all their hardware stolen.

 

I don't know if you can actually make a good game if you're constantly worrying about fulfilling expectations.

[Irishjohn]

Ha!  That's funny, because I've had the same reaction when other people have abbreviated it EA. 

 

Otherwise, I completely agree with you.  We are far enough into early funding now that buyer expectations should be set pretty appropriately for what may or may not happen with early access games. 

 

I would agree with all of that, but the more common Green Light/Early Access games have become the less comfortable I've become. The reality of the creative process is that things don't always work out as you want (in fact, rarely do and sometimes work out better) and sometimes don't work out at all. I feel a little uneasy with just how common it is now that games are going online early to get more funding. I know it brings us games that wouldn't exist otherwise, but it creates significant problems in terms of expectation and it clearly masks underlying issues in the industry as a whole. Considering how healthy the industry is as a whole, it concerns me that there's not enough money to go around to fund more adventurous projects from smaller publishers.

 

I know I'm only touching on something complex here, and the distribution of capital within the industry is of course going to follow certain currents, but I'd be a lot happier if most of these games were being made and released without relying on funding from future customers.

[Twig]

I'm increasingly of the idea that the more open-ended the game, the worse Early Access is for the game. Which is a complete flip from my expectations when Early Access first became a thing - i.e., once it moved beyond Minecraft.

 

Hell, I sort of think Minecraft, if it hadn't been essentially the progenitor of Early Access, would be more likely to fail today. In fact, there were a lot of broken promises from the beginning of Minecraft's development, and it's been personally disappointing for me. Obviously it's been successful in its own right for a long time now. What if Minecraft's development started today and those same promises were made? There'd be so much expectation around what it was SUPPOSED to do that I worry it'd be a complete failure. There will always be exceptions, of course - Gnomoria looks to be one, as srslyyou suggests - but I don't know.

 

Maybe this is all just a fever-induced theoretical, though. I feel ill and am sort of rambly. I hope what I said even makes sense! C'est la vie.

[Bjorn]

I would agree with all of that, but the more common Green Light/Early Access games have become the less comfortable I've become. The reality of the creative process is that things don't always work out as you want (in fact, rarely do and sometimes work out better) and sometimes don't work out at all. I feel a little uneasy with just how common it is now that games are going online early to get more funding. I know it brings us games that wouldn't exist otherwise, but it creates significant problems in terms of expectation and it clearly masks underlying issues in the industry as a whole. Considering how healthy the industry is as a whole, it concerns me that there's not enough money to go around to fund more adventurous projects from smaller publishers.

 

I know I'm only touching on something complex here, and the distribution of capital within the industry is of course going to follow certain currents, but I'd be a lot happier if most of these games were being made and released without relying on funding from future customers.

 

And I agree with a lot of that too!  It's hard to cover the full ground of the good and bad of early funding right now without basically writing an essay. 

[Dewar]

Yeah, that was pretty stupid of me not to consider the overhead of employing said person like snacks, drinks, office space, computer, equipment, software, and on and on.

Sorry, nevermind.

Healthcare alone often runs up around 20k a person, plus 401(k) and other benefits beyond that.

Edit: Upon reading Tim's post, it seems like hope got in the way of pragmatism. They kept on hoping that each update would bring in more folks, but I didn't see much marketing going on. They hoped right until the end, when they maybe could have communicated where things were sitting a little better and at least attempted to get the word out they were in trouble and see if the community could have brought more people in, or pledged more.

To be fair, either of those attempts could have backfired and made things worse. I guess I'm spoiled by the documentary showing the trials that Broken Age has gone through.

Edit2: That Zomboid post is poor. "I was miserable so they should have to be too" is not a good argument, as much as I'd like it to be when I complain about walking ten miles uphill both ways to school.

[Murdoc]

I'm sure someone at DoubleFine makes 120k a year. SF alone is the most expensive city to live in North America. One of the reasons why few traditional game develop companies are around anymore, Vancouver ran into a similar situation.

 

With that said, I've heard rumors that the average DF employee makes less than what a lot of others do in the same industry, within the same city. It's the price to "pay" for working a cool job.

 

Again, just rumor, but people who be in the know, so I'd trust that assessment. 

[Bjorn]

I'm sure someone at DoubleFine makes 120k a year. SF alone is the most expensive city to live in North America. One of the reasons why few traditional game develop companies are around anymore, Vancouver ran into a similar situation.

 

With that said, I've heard rumors that the average DF employee makes less than what a lot of others do in the same industry, within the same city. It's the price to "pay" for working a cool job.

 

Again, just rumor, but people who be in the know, so I'd trust that assessment.

 

That seems both believable, and a worthwhile tradeoff for employees who make that decision. DF is producing so many titles, it seems like a great place for someone who wants to make smaller, indie games (and maybe even helm their own game at some point), without having to personally take on the risks and challenges of running an indie studio themselves.

At least, that's how I've seen DF from the outside for the last 6 years or so.

[Dewar]

They've also made a commitment to keeping people employed, rather than growing and then laying off when a project shifts, as well as providing actual benefits which many game companies do not.

[Twig]

Many game companies don't provide benefits? Literally every place I've applied to or who has reached out to me has provided benefits. Unless you're referring to something beyond the typical 401k/health/snacks/etc.?

[Jake]

I don't know a studio in the US that doesn't provide benefits, at least for salaried employees. I am sure they exist and are probably more common than I think, but in my experience it is generally an expected thing to have included in your employment package as a developer.

[Dewar]

Hmm, I had heard differently, but I don't have any hard info so I'll bow to the experts.

[clyde]

I just want to point out that Minecraft got more expensive as time went on while Spacebase got less expensive. Spacebase did not follow the Minecraft method of funding.

Also, I certainly identify with the potential disappointment of early-access, but I much prefer having it available than not. I don't like the idea that the only games which can make money are the ones that the profit-orientated capitalists or the developers themselves can fund to completion.

[syntheticgerbil]

I don't know a studio in the US that doesn't provide benefits, at least for salaried employees. I am sure they exist and are probably more common than I think, but in my experience it is generally an expected thing to have included in your employment package as a developer.

The best is when a studio employees a bunch of people for years under indefinite 1099s for years using their computers, working in their offices, and using their software (stolen) just so they can get out of ever paying benefits. Texas is shiesty though.

[Irishjohn]

That seems both believable, and a worthwhile tradeoff for employees who make that decision. DF is producing so many titles, it seems like a great place for someone who wants to make smaller, indie games (and maybe even helm their own game at some point), without having to personally take on the risks and challenges of running an indie studio themselves.

At least, that's how I've seen DF from the outside for the last 6 years or so.

 

Well, I've never appreciated smaller companies trotting out the "but it's great to work here!" line as a reason for less pay. This isn't limited to game devs; I work in education and it's a feature here too. Of course, part of the problem is that smaller places in all kinds of industries can be very flexible in ways that larger employers cannot (for example employees (developers, educators) can take chances and try things that might be harder at a larger company/institution) but don't have the ability to pay higher wages. In an attempt to make up for this, the company/institution will talk up the things about being small that are awesome. This will eventually get sucked into a narrative of "we pay less because we can do more" which isn't actually the original intent, but pisses off the employees who in turn piss off the administrators that have bought into the idea of paying less for ideological reasons rather than fiscal ones while still being clearer on the fiscal reasons than the employees are.

Having said that, in education a lot of these places will point to cost of living. I currently do not live in a major American city, which means that I can afford a lifestyle I could only dream of in Chicago or even in Austin, Texas. This is where the SF issue comes in... it's just really, really expensive. Obviously, it depends on the dev (Campo Santo is an example of an indie developer created by SF residents; what are they going to do, all move together?) but I'm surprised that SF remains such a hub for the development community more generally when there's really nothing stopping studios being anywhere they like.

 

I would point out that I have no experience in game development but I would argue strongly based on the experience I do have that a team should be in the same location and work in the same physical space. I'm not convinced a model where half the art team lives in Minnesota and the writers live in Utah would work, but I think it would make more sense for the entire dev team to operate outside large cities; near enough to visit but far enough away for overhead (and more workable wages) to be reasonable.

 

Please note I don't work in the industry so this is all meant to be speculative and is as much a reaction to my own line of work. As an enthusiast, my main worry is that games development at all levels is functioning at a level of insustainability. At the moment the industry seems to rely on young creative intelligent people being willing to make sacrifices to work on things they love. I'm not convinced that should be necessary, and I don't see why a game developer shouldn't have a chance to have the lifestyle s/he wants. Academia has gone down a similar path, and I really don't see how I could work for a university in San Francisco or New York or Chicago unless a) I end up on The Daily Show talking about my book or my wife's career takes off and she makes enough money for a move to one of those cities to be feasible.

[Irishjohn]

Ha. That second point is meant to be a b, not smiley dude wearing sunglasses. I refuse to edit it.

[syntheticgerbil]

Well, I've never appreciated smaller companies trotting out the "but it's great to work here!" line as a reason for less pay. This isn't limited to game devs; I work in education and it's a feature here too. Of course, part of the problem is that smaller places in all kinds of industries can be very flexible in ways that larger employers cannot (for example employees (developers, educators) can take chances and try things that might be harder at a larger company/institution) but don't have the ability to pay higher wages. In an attempt to make up for this, the company/institution will talk up the things about being small that are awesome. This will eventually get sucked into a narrative of "we pay less because we can do more" which isn't actually the original intent, but pisses off the employees who in turn piss off the administrators that have bought into the idea of paying less for ideological reasons rather than fiscal ones while still being clearer on the fiscal reasons than the employees are.

Nah man, Pixar is the best cartoon studio in the world, just check this out: http://pando.com/2014/07/07/revealed-court-docs-show-role-of-pixar-and-dreamworks-animation-in-silicon-valley-wage-fixing-cartel/ They get paid less and fix the wages a little bit too low with other big Hollywood studios because it's important to stay humble. Wouldn't want those animators raking any of those sweet millions unless it's John Lasseter himself, that's silly.

 

Having said that, in education a lot of these places will point to cost of living. I currently do not live in a major American city, which means that I can afford a lifestyle I could only dream of in Chicago or even in Austin, Texas.

Well Austin was pretty cheap when I moved here in 2009. The cost of living was something like 95% of Houston on average (where I'm from). I recently read now it's like 150%. In general Texas contains some of the biggest U.S. cities with the lowest cost of living.

 

Austin is just not sustainable because it's roads are all fucked and undeveloped, there is no feasible public transportation, and there's all these greenbelts and environmentally protected areas in the way of developing any of the above plus housing. I imagine the only way to sustain it is to start bulldozing greenbelts and sections of housing, but the old guard Austin hippies will never allow that. Like it is an actual thing that city council has voted against expanding infrastructure for decades because if you don't build it they won't come, apparently. There's all of this talk constantly about Californians ruining the city but really hardly anyone in this city is from here and it's even sort of rare that they are from another Texas city.

[Irishjohn]

Austin is just not sustainable because it's roads are all fucked and undeveloped, there is no feasible public transportation, and there's all these greenbelts and environmentally protected areas in the way of developing any of the above plus housing. I imagine the only way to sustain it is to start bulldozing greenbelts and sections of housing, but the old guard Austin hippies will never allow that. Like it is an actual thing that city council has voted against expanding infrastructure for decades because if you don't build it they won't come, apparently. There's all of this talk constantly about Californians ruining the city but really hardly anyone in this city is from here and it's even sort of rare that they are from another Texas city.

 

Yeah, I lived in Austin from 2006 to 2011 (we could have had a mini-thumbs meetup!) and loved it. I made the mistake of moving away. Moving back would have involved a career change (again, UT Austin wasn't going to hire me tenure track unless something huge happened) and we really wanted to until the last year or so. It's just become so much more expensive and less convenient than it used to be. Man, the autumns of 2006 through 2008 in particular were a spectacular time to be a grad student at UT.

I still have friends there, of course. One is in graphic design and has recently found himself out of work only to be confronted with the fact that Austin might be the worst place on the planet earth to try and make your living as a graphic designer due to phenomenal supply of talent (or at least people from various hipser and non-hipster backgrounds working as designers).

[Erkki]

I think it would make more sense for the entire dev team to operate outside large cities; near enough to visit but far enough away for overhead (and more workable wages) to be reasonable.

 

I don't think this makes much sense, at least not as general advice -- wouldn't it make sense for other industries too then, as long as the work is not tied to a location. And then suddenly a whole lot of people should move to near-city areas, forming some humongous suburbia. Or if that should not happen in general, then why would game developers be different? People live where they live and they seem to want to be in cities. I guess in the US it's more common to move long distances for work than it is in Europe, but I assume at some point people still get attached to a place, which seems healthy.

 

At the moment the industry seems to rely on young creative intelligent people being willing to make sacrifices to work on things they love. I'm not convinced that should be necessary, and I don't see why a game developer shouldn't have a chance to have the lifestyle s/he wants.

 

Indeed, that seems to be a problem, at least looking from the outside. Competition between companies should force them to pay a fair salary, but if a lot of people are willing to accept less, then why should they? We had a recent case here where a German company moved part of its software development to Estonia and offered way more than the usual salary to be able to hire a lot of devs quickly. We lost a couple of people to them, even as most people got a rather nice salary rise out of it -- they just forced other companies to raise salaries as well to keep good people.

 

I would imagine it would work similarly in game dev, but on the other hand creative leaders and game projects may create a lot more emotional attachments than simple software.

[Argobot]

Well, I've never appreciated smaller companies trotting out the "but it's great to work here!" line as a reason for less pay. This isn't limited to game devs; I work in education and it's a feature here too. Of course, part of the problem is that smaller places in all kinds of industries can be very flexible in ways that larger employers cannot (for example employees (developers, educators) can take chances and try things that might be harder at a larger company/institution) but don't have the ability to pay higher wages. In an attempt to make up for this, the company/institution will talk up the things about being small that are awesome. This will eventually get sucked into a narrative of "we pay less because we can do more" which isn't actually the original intent, but pisses off the employees who in turn piss off the administrators that have bought into the idea of paying less for ideological reasons rather than fiscal ones while still being clearer on the fiscal reasons than the employees are.

Having said that, in education a lot of these places will point to cost of living. I currently do not live in a major American city, which means that I can afford a lifestyle I could only dream of in Chicago or even in Austin, Texas. This is where the SF issue comes in... it's just really, really expensive. Obviously, it depends on the dev (Campo Santo is an example of an indie developer created by SF residents; what are they going to do, all move together?) but I'm surprised that SF remains such a hub for the development community more generally when there's really nothing stopping studios being anywhere they like.

I would point out that I have no experience in game development but I would argue strongly based on the experience I do have that a team should be in the same location and work in the same physical space. I'm not convinced a model where half the art team lives in Minnesota and the writers live in Utah would work, but I think it would make more sense for the entire dev team to operate outside large cities; near enough to visit but far enough away for overhead (and more workable wages) to be reasonable.

Please note I don't work in the industry so this is all meant to be speculative and is as much a reaction to my own line of work. As an enthusiast, my main worry is that games development at all levels is functioning at a level of insustainability. At the moment the industry seems to rely on young creative intelligent people being willing to make sacrifices to work on things they love. I'm not convinced that should be necessary, and I don't see why a game developer shouldn't have a chance to have the lifestyle s/he wants. Academia has gone down a similar path, and I really don't see how I could work for a university in San Francisco or New York or Chicago unless a) I end up on The Daily Show talking about my book or my wife's career takes off and she makes enough money for a move to one of those cities to be feasible.

True cities are expensive, especially SF, and true that more policy is needed to make sure that everyone but the very wealthy are not priced out of urban areas, but that doesn't mean we can reasonably expect business to relocate to cheaper locations. Living in a city is a major draw for many young people; if development studios all decamped to less populated areas, I imagine they'd have a harder time bringing in employees. It's a trade off for sure and I can full admit that the draw of urban life is stronger for some than others, but one Early Access game being shuttered doesn't mean that a studio in SF is unsustainable.

[syntheticgerbil]

I still have friends there, of course. One is in graphic design and has recently found himself out of work only to be confronted with the fact that Austin might be the worst place on the planet earth to try and make your living as a graphic designer due to phenomenal supply of talent (or at least people from various hipser and non-hipster backgrounds working as designers).

Yeah, I feel for him. I will probably have to get the fuck out of here after I finish my second degree at ACC (which is actually still remarkably cheap here). But I don't know where I'd go.

 

 I guess in the US it's more common to move long distances for work than it is in Europe, but I assume at some point people still get attached to a place, which seems healthy.

Plus moving is an expensive and awful ordeal unless you are a young man who only owns a laptop, an air mattress, and possibly a small dresser.

 

True cities are expensive, especially SF, and true that more policy is needed to make sure that everyone but the very wealthy are not priced out of urban areas, but that doesn't mean we can reasonably expect business to relocate to cheaper locations. Living in a city is a major draw for many young people; if development studios all decamped to less populated areas, I imagine they'd have a harder time bringing in employees. It's a trade off for sure and I can full admit that the draw of urban life is stronger for some than others, but one Early Access game being shuttered doesn't mean that a studio in SF is unsustainable.

But Dallas and Houston are not expensive and are pretty easy to get around if you have a car (at least for Houston) and live a little bit outside the inner loop. Also both cities are trying hard to get more feasible public transportation going and are very different from a decade ago. I would imagine many of the cities named on this list have similar amenities, urban areas, and sites to see compared to most cities out there: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erincarlyle/2014/03/11/americas-most-affordable-cities/

 

Also Oddworld Inhabitants used to be in San Luis Obispo for the sake of reducing overhead and having a less crowded area to get around. While Lorne Lanning said it made it hard to convince talent to move there, he sure was able to get some of the best and they did manage to make it work for four games over the course of a decade. Not too shabby.

Personally I'd love for many companies to get the fuck out of the Bay Area and go somewhere else because it seems pretty ridiculous for them all to be concentrated in one tiny spot considering how big the rest of the U.S. and how many other cities there are. Seems like both employees and investors could stand to benefit financially by getting out of there. When you are a media company who makes profit based on a worldly scale and not locally why stay in an expensive area? Surely there are solutions for things like local networking for the sake of investors.

[Irishjohn]

I don't think this makes much sense, at least not as general advice -- wouldn't it make sense for other industries too then, as long as the work is not tied to a location. People live where they live and they seem to want to be in cities. I guess in the US it's more common to move long distances for work than it is in Europe, but I assume at some point people still get attached to a place, which seems healthy.

 

I agree, and I certainly don't think a dev should pick up and move away. It wouldn't be feasible. I think it would be better if devs emerged in other places more naturally. This isn't limited to game development though... American cities (SF in particular) are becoming remarkably expensive and many industries are moving to cities big enough to have interesting stuff going on but not so big as to make living there inordinately expensive. Austin was until recently an excellent example of this. Places like Charlotte, NC are great candidates for the next wave of this.

 

The video games industry is unique in terms of just how many American developers live in SF. Part of it is due to the fact that SF is awesome of course. But there are lots of companies in the US moving away from expensive world cities, for sure.

[Chris]

Fuck, I know this is partly because California is an insanely expensive place to live for anyone who did not already reside in California and that they deal in insanity money, but the fact that people are making $120,000 a year at Double Fine is fucking insane to me.

 

I guess when you pay something like $1000 and up to have a room in a shared apartment in the Bay Area that's what you need if you maybe wanted to live in a house or duplex with your spouse and maybe an office?

They are absolutely not making that on average. I made less than half of that when I worked there. Pretty much any Double Fine employee could go get a job in their discipline at some way less appealing Bay Area game/tech company and increase their salary by a lot. That is burn rate, it is the TOTAL cost to employ somebody, which includes not only salary, but health insurance and all other benefits, rent, utilities and other office overhead, company events, and so on. "Cost to employ" is not the same thing as "take-home pay." A huge chunk of that total figure is not going to change much depending on where the studio is located.

[Irishjohn]

True cities are expensive, especially SF, and true that more policy is needed to make sure that everyone but the very wealthy are not priced out of urban areas, but that doesn't mean we can reasonably expect business to relocate to cheaper locations. Living in a city is a major draw for many young people; if development studios all decamped to less populated areas, I imagine they'd have a harder time bringing in employees. It's a trade off for sure and I can full admit that the draw of urban life is stronger for some than others, but one Early Access game being shuttered doesn't mean that a studio in SF is unsustainable.

 

Oh I don't think a studio in SF in unsustainable. I also agree that big cities are a major draw for people; frankly if I didn't work in education I'd have found a way to stay in Chicago. I just think that the industry more broadly needs to get past the reliance on younger talented people that will make certain sacrifices. As I said, this isn't restricted to game development, but I think the early access model is symptomatic of larger problems in the industry. Spacebase not working out, by itself, doesn't mean the industry is damned. It's not like it's some isolated incident though.

[Irishjohn]

True cities are expensive, especially SF, and true that more policy is needed to make sure that everyone but the very wealthy are not priced out of urban areas, but that doesn't mean we can reasonably expect business to relocate to cheaper locations. Living in a city is a major draw for many young people; if development studios all decamped to less populated areas, I imagine they'd have a harder time bringing in employees. It's a trade off for sure and I can full admit that the draw of urban life is stronger for some than others, but one Early Access game being shuttered doesn't mean that a studio in SF is unsustainable.

 

Sorry, I should have edited my last reply but here I go: in my particular working experience, I seriously considered giving up on academia and going private sector purely so I COULD live in a big city. The jobs I was looking at would have brought a significant wage increase. For the most part that doesn't quite seem to be there in game development. Perhaps I'm talking more about the fact that the creators aren't seeing as much of the pie as they should. Perhaps I'm talking out of my rear end. I have zero experience in the games industry or in living in San Francisco for more than a few weeks.

[syntheticgerbil]

That is burn rate, it is the TOTAL cost to employ somebody, which includes not only salary, but health insurance and all other benefits, rent, utilities and other office overhead, company events, and so on. "Cost to employ" is not the same thing as "take-home pay." A huge chunk of that total figure is not going to change much depending on where the studio is located.

Yeah, I apologized earlier for my stupidity. I didn't read the original quote right and brain fart. Sorry.