Does making 3d characters really pays off ?
polycounter lvl 5
Ok lets put it like this.
If I or anybody else who is unknown make 3d character (human character) which is good looking anatomy, have nice clean topology, nice clothing and modeling,good textures,nice grooming created by haircards etc ready to be rigged and animated something is telling me that i still would not get any job opportunity or even views and likes if I post it on artstation (or any other portfolio showcase). Probably because there are tons of those good looking and functional 3d characters on the internet, then why the hell to do this at all? It is a waste of time. It is ungrateful then. You put tons of hours of hard work and you get nothing.
I can only do it as a hobby for my personal satisfaction, because of course we all love this but after all that hard work I would still ask myself was this worth of my time and effort because I have also real life obligations and responsibilities to do.
Replies
as to why should you do it? I would say, skill development, making yourself more valueable as an artist in your path towards mastery of your craft, it's a better use of your time than watching netflix etc. There are a ton of reasons why, but the first and foremost should be enjoyment and happiness not money or likes.
thats my high level theory, but here is some actual tactical advice:
how many times have you posted on artstation? if its like 1-2 and you have no following, then yea it's probably not going to get many likes or views because you have no audience or following to help push it into trending and get visibilty on your work. everyone starts at 0 on artstation of instagram etc. I buit mine over several years of posting work atleast a few times a year, doing blog posts, tutorial videos and generally documenting whatever I was doing to provide value to the community where I could. as a result, my followers grew and now whenever I artwork it usually gets enough engagement to get views and have recruiters hitting me up. but thats after grinding it out for the last 4-5 years.
for your next character, maybe document the process in the blog section of artstation, it gets way less posts than the general art pages, so you will probably get more eyeballs on your work. show as much step by step as you can and give tips and show where you are stuck and ask for advice etc.
if you are not getting the results you want, increase your output. when you have posted 10 different characters on your artstation, you will be getting way better results in terms of interaction than when you only posted 1-2. again I dont have any context for your portfolio so a link would be helpful to see where you are at. But most of all, patience, its a long game, It took me 6 years before I started getting job offers to do paid 3d work. How long have you been making characters for?
My creations are only for me. Most people dont like creatures. If im on like hunt on Artstation i would do half naked Girls. 😁
I strongly believe that doing art for likes and people's appreciation is the worst way you could go. There are tons of people like that on instagram or facebook, for example, who send you pm asking if you could go on their profile and like their artwork or even share it, etc.. I don't think you can go anywhere good like that.
As said above by the other, it comes with time and work. You won't get 10k+ followers and your dream job overnight just beacause you did one good artwork. Start by enjoying what you do, the rest will follow. Don't worry about the likes 😁
In my opinion this is a myth that neglects all the other factors (like location, expectations, timing, luck, etc.) that are at least as important
In this situation would his industry experience matter more so you could get him in on the O category.
Or would you outsource work to them instead (seeing as all the popular franchises are doing this to a pretty large extent reducing the amount of work available to talented locals that ought to be considered first.
In ontario this was rectified by the liberal government offering financial incentives to AAA companies to hire locals, though more visible minorities among locals, around 264 million$ under the table tax deductible grant over a 10 year period)
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/ontarios-investment-in-ubisoft-failed-dismally-to-create-jobs-boost-economy/article27613036/
So that's 330,000K per job, being in the most expensive city in Canada, guess how much new hires got?
That said I doubt the government cared about candidate porfolios in this case lol. And you'd be surprised how much you can skim off the top, its so well known but no ones coming forward publicly since they're all terrified of losing their jobs.
Several of the teachers from these companies teach at the schools, isn't that an environment ripe for sycophancy?
In my experience sure in general the portfolio matters, but who you know seems to matter a whole lot more. Its kinda like what they think of you and your portfolio, so no particular gold standard really.
Also soft skills, can work under pressure, totally out the door for student hires that know someone. Its senseless.
With companies focusing on poaching seniors, its like paddle ball. This could be rectified if working conditions improved so people stay put and any funding through government tax incentives goes to create new jobs.
Realistically though it makes sense when you consider that a budget and bottomline matter a lot more. Look how much they spend on marketing in comparison.
Like sure portfolio matters to leads and art directors, but usually not to HR and accounting.
Like sure in some of the more specialized studios clearly they need that level of talent, but its not the only consideration.
Like there's talent, experience and who you know, but the work at the end in the studio doesn't really need all three so comparing the lot in a bunch seems more influenced by budget and how much time you have to consider potential hires.
There's way too many variables.
Its great to encourage artists to excel regardless, but I'm seeing this more as a result of there being too many applicants, then there actually being many good applicants,
In my experience, my folio is considered good (atleast that's what they say and it seems adequate to them) but my location and visa makes being hired an issue. But I don't know the latter until after they've compared me to someone else locally.
Which means that while my portfolio is important, and its good that they appreciate it, it really does seem that at the end its their budget and requirement with the least amount of complexity in the hiring process that has more influence on who they eventually go with.
There is also very little transparency in the entire process, seems more a shot in the dark for the most part.
And subject matter is another factor with regards to how the audience reacts, how much hype that generates, if that leads you to being featured and have a company considering you because of it, regardless of whether this extra embellishment has anything to do with the work actually being done in studio which is all behind closed doors in total secrecy.
Kinda like wanting to associate with someone who's having his 5 mins of fame, even if the end output is the same as someone not readlly noticed or too difficult to recruit because of a visa issue.
But then again this is the entertainment industry, so not really surprising for the most part.
The problem with this process is the absolutely zero transparency or credibility, or professionalism for that matter in several cases. Though they are likely to treat you better if you are sought after like most entertainment industry corporate professions. (likely screw you over later anyway)
Most opportunities available are so touch and go, that many times even they don't know if the position they're interviewing for actually exists.
Its simple corporate mechanics at work, the poor management kind which is reflected all across glassdoor for all to see.
And usually criticism after interview about the person or portfolio isn't given because of legal reasons. I do however find artists to be more receptive but eventually its management that makes the final decisions usually because of budget.
For instance if a person with a great portfolio and little industry experience were going up against a senior with a great portfolio and a lot of industry experience, is it fair to consider one against the other.
In some ways possibly, given what we actually do on the job can be done to the same standard by both.
Though to HR, the latter seems like a safer bet, especially if they can be undercut, and many sadly have to.
If passion blinds you, its easy to take advantage of you. Does that affect your happiness, probably not.
But it does affect the market in a major way.
Most times if my portfolio has been looked at, it is because I knew someone, or I applied at the right time.
So yes portfolio is important, but that importance is only valid if they actually see it, and if you don't know anyone inside a studio in a competitive market, or have done something to pull in the crowds to validate your work, its unlikely your portfolio will ever been seen regardless of how good you might be for the job.
Like there's an entire thread about how sycophancy in the industry can get you work, and while everyone that admits to that is certain about their ability, how much of it is actually used in the workplace and is it only for the purpose of doing the work.
Consider Vitaly Bulgarov joining Guru Animation to work on paw patrol. Seems mad absurd, but that wee bit of punch of a known famous face can help with marketing, which is what the majority of the budget goes towards.
Not so say that some studios can't certainly use such talent, but consider how much is outsourced because it is cheaper. How can anyone believe that portfolio is king in the grand scheme of things especially in AAA?
If they were that superb at their work, I wouldn't have a day job because there would be nothing to do quality assurance on. Every artist hired seemingly god tier would create superb work from the get go totally ready to ship with no quality assurance necessary.
But the stuff I see, good god man and this is from the top studios that supposedly hire top of the line artists. Why then am I doing QA on what looks like student work?
imagined if I judged them with the logic of you are only as good as your worst piece. I don't think a single company would be worth working for.
Its like there is no competency client side, for example the model has a weird looking head and the hair is wrong and on backwards, even the eyes are missing, but this was sent to us to verify for bugs. Are they blind?
The likely reason behind this particular example was that the hair, eyes were outsourced and somewhere mismanaged to the point that this abomination was dropped on our doorstep.
I'd love to reveal what the game is but can't owing to NDA but its interesting seeing the reality what actually constitutes an approval and just how much is allowed through (remember mass effect andromeda?)
It makes me wonder if the work was done by seniors, I mean it very likely is and I'm sure they are competent at a personal level, but what I'm getting at is does quality of portfolios actually matter for junior applicants where they need to be senior level
I mean given the way the industry works, even the best possible quality is squandered by mismanagement to get the product to market as fast as possible, so what exactly is being accomplished here?
There seems to be a serious disconnect between the skills that are apparently sought after and the actual skills that give competency and professionalism such as the ability to multitask and manage large volumes of work.
In that sense I am hoping its mismanagement, even the environment work is atrocious, floating grass, water textures placed backwards, holes everywhere.
And the deadlines are downright nuts purely to drive hype and income which is likely why we get this sort of stuff to bug test. Probably cheaper for them just to toss it to us like rubbish thrown at 3rd world countries for recycling.
Maybe its just the nature of the franchise, but if money and greed isn't the driver of this madness I don't know what is. Its all style no substance.
And I'd like to believe that about folio's leading to a lot else, and I'm sure some companies truly stand by those standards, but it certainly isn't the general rule and not the only factor under consideration certainly when it comes to vetting a potential hire.
I verified this assertion by checking through linkedin employee lists of many of the companies here in Montreal and could not find any consistency in portfolio quality across candidates.
Like I could not say for certain that all of them had hit a particular bar, sure they might have had pieces that were great, but they clearly did not follow any specific guidelines for instance,
1. Many had portfolio's with only sculpts and no low poly work
2. Several had no models rendered in game engine
3. lot of unfinished pieces across their portfolios
What I did find in common though were.
1. They all graduated from the same school that has teachers that come from companies where they acquire internships
2. Some were selected because of group portfolio projects where not every artist had the same skill level, this made me wonder whether it was more prudent to make a game as a portfolio piece rather than a static well posed character.
3. It was very rare that a candidate actually tailored their portfolio to what a company actually did.
4. Most times it was what was popular and trending that seemed to resonate with art leads/ prior industry experience and games published that were more vital to HR/management. In this light a junior was no match for a senior with published titles willing to take a pay cut.
The usual response I've had to all this is that I don't know the whole story and maybe there were other aspects that showed potential. And that's fair, but the lack on transparency in what exactly constitutes a good portfolio and whether the work in it is actually relevant to the job their given is pretty startling.
Like I'd keep encourage artists to do great work and push themselves but to say that this would lead to all that, I'm finding that difficult to believe given what I have seen.
So does making 3D characters pay off in the end? Depends on what the end is, for most people here its probably a job in AAA making 3D characters which clearly isn't guaranteed given the way the industry operates.
In the end, I earned a D from them, which I felt was fine because I had given myself a C. But what made me think, "well this is a load of shit" is when I saw the winners in my category. Almost none of them were game characters at all!
So this is a finished asset for the time being, not properly done but approved at some level then sent to us to bug and fail so it goes back for iteration.
Who knows maybe if they had more time, they would work better and we would have no job, then again we don't go developer side so no idea what the heck is going on there.
It also means that the emphasis here isn't "one really good quality piece." rather finish to some level what you're assigned because it may work later on if someone else is assigned to it.
So I guess that comes down to testing how people work in teams, considering what I'm seeing it really isn't working out too great.
Ideally given the top tier nature of the god level game artist, shouldn't their work not require any QA whatsover since their so damned great at what they do?
Reality is that like all human beings they can make mistakes, many more so then others, but here we have this trend of reject because one thing is wrong so the person must be useless, or rather that's what the lot of us seem to want to assume since a company can do no wrong.
Its likely just an ego thing, but this does nothing to stop mismanagement and abuse.
Maybe we should have a black list for companies depending on how much their games suck bug wise.
Also the general trend I noticed from most people in the industry is, "I'm willing to deal with this since I have no choice, maybe it will lead to something better." Its really is painful to see, but they do seem to be oddly happy with their circumstances.
Kind of like how prisoners get institutionalized.
2. you learn how to lay bricks you get a job as a bricklayer and you make a living out of it.
3. you learn how to code and you get a job as a developer and you make a living out of it.
4. you learn how printing machines work, learn DTP, Ps,illustrator,indesign and you get a job in printing company and make a living out of it.
5. you learn how to sale and you get a job as a salesman and make a living out of it
6. you learn how to weld you get a job as a welder and make a living out of it.
7. you learn how to bake and you get a job as a baker in bakery and you make a living out of it.
8. you learn to operate on CNC machines and you get a job as a CNC operator and you make a living out of it.
9. you learn how to work with wood and carpentry you get a job as a carpenter and make a living out ot it
10. you spend months and years (because it's a passion and love) to learn sculpting /modeling 3d characters, texturing,baking,shading,rendering,clothing in MD and you create a character, post it on the internet and you get NOTHING! No job, no carrier , no income (oh sorry,you get actually 3 likes and 15 views on artstation)
then your consciousness ask you - who is fool here ?
Comedians do that.
Post some art. I have yet to see you finish anything.
All this shows is a total lack of understanding of the market which plays a massive role in if this is actually the case. And more importantly how much game industry experience and published titles add to what is considered a good portfolio.
Personally I've never understood the tier system, or if there even is one, or rather something that artists impose upon themselves because of low self esteem and social ineptness which is very prevalent in videogames. That and a lack of a university education in several cases with limited life experience and negotiation skills.
Add the capitalists free market system where employers have all the power and you have an environment ripe for abuse.
Like they advertise for rockstars, ninja samurai, but I see more people with social anxiety and mental health issues in this one industry than others with much higher responsibility and stress level such as medicine and nursing.
What lacks in our industry is adequate redressal and fair compensation, which most of the artists justify saying well that's how the market is in capitalism, pretty cowardly if you ask me but is it really that surprising given that so many consider these to be dream jobs?
Consider how many of us hide behind anonymous identities so as not to affect our chances of being hired in an industry ready to screw you over for having an opinion.
A lot of this anxiety stems from the type of crowd and culture of fear that currently exists. It isn't just perpetuated by studios, we all have a role to play in fomenting this.
The way the corporate world works sure, someone with more experience is considered a safer bet, but does that necessarily mean his skills are required from the perspective of work actually done in a studio? Or is studio work more about collaborative skills that would benefit from hiring from more diverse backgrounds.
The sad thing is that because there is zero transparency, one can only keep speculating and more often than not the blame falls on the artist for taking crap.
I work in QA, and if the crap I receive from these dream companies to bug test is what is top tier artist quality, I can only imagine that there is something seriously wrong with industry hiring practices and studio management.
That is what invalidates the whole aspect of being sought after and creates abominations like Mass Effect Andromeda.
HR and art leads/directors are totally disconnected from what would actually work best given the circumstances.
I think regardless of your creative potential, the main factor that decides who's hired is budget and workload.
Consider all the seniors being laid off, having to take pay cuts and consider internship positions because their job has zero protection which is what leads to seniors resigning their positions to join competitors.
And more often than not desperately trying to protect their position by creating standards that clearly aren't reflected in the games they actually make.
In an industry so volatile, its no wonder hiring practices are so damn sketchy. Its very asinine to just drop artists in "tiers" shooting ourselves in the foot for what is in reality a serious problem in corporate management.
I mean if this is how it goes, its the saddest existence I've ever seen for creative people.
The only top tier I can see is artists who push themselves solely for the perfection of their craft, not for some game industry dream job. They don't need to compete since they've used all their creative potential to live a full life, not simply languishing as a corporate puppet.
Not a good thing.
Give then amount blown on marketing games as opposed to developing them, there needs to be some balance to make conditions more favourable.
To get a job crafting 3d hero characters (on-site at a studio or through freelancing/art asset houses), what one needs to do is to be able to hit either the Dota2/OW/Fortnite look, or a more "idealized gritty realism" look (The Division, Destiny2, and so on). It may sound like an oversimplification but I do believe that most game art falls into either or these two categories now, with even some overlap when it comes to intricate armor and gear (for instance a Diablo style game would now fall somewhere inbetween. Same for something like Borderlands).
Either that ... or going full-on niche (flat colored lowpoly) to secure a spot at an indie studio.
Practically speaking I would say that in order to get hire-able it would take about 2 years of regular practice for a barebones tech skillset (as in, pushing buttons in 3d programs : lowpoly, highpoly, UVs, baking, texturing), with an added edge to those who can do basic skin weighting and engine export (so add 6 months to that). But this needs to be on top of a solid art background (anatomy, proportions, and so on), so let's say 5 years or so in parallel. Tackling things the other way around (tech first and trying to figure the art later or on top) leads to massive blind spots imho.
The obvious irony being that after developping some rather high level art/artisan skills, one may not necessarily enjoy being a cog in the machine and being told what to do by the market. This is a given in any art-related job, game or otherwise ; but I think the very nature of game characters now taking months to make and becoming a currency (skins) rather than just days/week for older handpainted content is a very real consideration to keep in mind getting in, since the satisfaction of being able to crank out cool art content in a short time is now mostly gone. Which circles back to the appeal of hitting a niche (flat colorful indie stuff) as opposed to mainstream (Zeedbrushed skins).
Also, the Warframe Workshop seems like a very healthy place to leverage for someone to hone their game art and tech skills, and gives access (albeit indirectly) to professionals reviewing your art and potentially giving constructive feedback. Very cool stuff.
There will always be games/project breaking the art mold(s), like the very clever stylization choices that were made on Ashen for instance : no facial features + everything based on lowpoly was a genious move. But this kind of ballsy direction is more typical of smaller studios having to find clever ways to work around production constrants. Also, smaller studio = less higher ups and execs potentially influencing the visual style, hence naturally more room for strong ADs to express a clear unique vision.
But as far as demonstrating the skills needed to be hired at a big studio as a modeler (big studio = "generic" art in that sense), the tech plateau has been reached and anything sculpted character-wise falls into either category, with some slight variations. The tech is already at a point where there is no room to hide and everything needs to be represented (highpoly sources).
The only big project I can think of that is slightly outside of that paradigm is Warframe, as these guys just didn't care at all about what's popular and developped their own very unique quirky style as a final bid to save their studio, to fantastic results. But this is extremely rare and will become even more rare now that character skins are currency and front and center in monetization strategies.
To put it in practical terms : 10 years ago, doing game art meant being clever in order to simulate good looking stuff with limited ressources (pixels and polygons akin to impressionist brush strokes). New even the most mundane gear item has already virtually no limit in terms of surfacing and detailling. So one of the most important skill to develop for a modeler now is a great knowledge of the specific visual vocabulary used in stylized art, so as to not having to request an endless amount of cross sections and paintovers from concept artists/ADs about how square a detail should be, how bevelled the edge of a leather strap needs to be, and so on.
It's both a good thing (it's predictable hence easier to project oneself into) and a bit of a downer at the same time (tech art plateau reached, hence less room to explore what may come next). Meaning that someone getting into a medium/big studio as a modeler at this time might want to make sure they're okay with a certain amount of stagnation process-wise going forward.
- - - - -
As for "will it still be Overwatch then ?" : well, it's all a matter of perspective. The OW art style is 99% rooted in classic 90's Capcom imagery, itself firmly rooted in traditional animation. It's just that game art tech is only now at a point where this look can be faithfully captured as real-time assets, with all the surface qualities and lively expressions involved. So to me this style is not a dot on a timeline, but rather a singularity being reached in terms what is possible execution-wise. KH3 also demonstrate this with game art visuals indistiguishable from Pixar feature films. Basically a culmination of about 20 years of improvement in fidelity.
From there previewing what may or may not be possible game art wise is not so much about what style may or may not become possible thanks to progress in tech, but rather, which untapped style from graphic novels or animated movies has not yet been "ported over". There may be a few (NPR type, but that too has culminated tech wise with the recent ArcSys games) but not that many. As far as mainstream is concerned, yeah I'd say the plateau is reached and it won't change for a while imho.
Now on the more intellectually stimulating side of things : being fully well-versed into what it takes to make this kind of "bread and butter" game art is extremely important, because it allows a team to make informed choices about what to do and not to do. Besides Ashen, I find that Hot Lava is a fantastic example of a team very cleverly navigating this tricky problem (action figures instead of organic characters). Nintendo is great at that too, with lots of very cleverly cut corners demonstrated in games like Arms, BoTW, Mario Kart, Labo.
Thanks for judging me while hiding behind your anonymity. Its great that you put yourself first before everyone else. Though probably not the best attitude for a lead, don't you think?
Why don't you come out of the woodwork, so its more transparent to the apparently low and mid tier artists languishing beneath your god given talent?
Stop and think for a bit.
There are many people reading your posts who work in the industry you seem hell bent of berating.
These people have worked hard to get where they are. Nobody handed them anything on a plate, they've made sacrifices, they've relocated, they've probably had their health suffer cos they stayed up late getting good enough to break into what is an incredibly competitive market.
It could just be misinterpretation but your posts over recent months seem to imply that the industry is rife with nepotism and corruption - the implication of this is that those with the jobs dont deserve them or haven't got them based on merit. this isn't going to go down well with anyone - let alone someone who might have rolled in at 10pm after a 12 hour work day spent polishing something up so you as a consumer can enjoy it more.
Edit: make that 14, clearly the hours are getting to me
I admire what we do for consumers. It would be good if the companies we worked for felt the same way.
I'm really just going by what I've seen. Its a fact that so many of us are just trying to make a living, and its a sad situation when you think about it.
I'm not berating the industry, rather just saying it how it is, since most places we only hear of the glamorous side and how despite all the bs because of messed up corporate practices we ought to be proud of how far we've come.
I hope you were well compensated for 14 straight hours, a consumer that admires the artist behind the work likely would not want to see you have endure that.
Being in 3rd party QA, I can tell you that several of the companies we service are putting their employees through the same thing, I can't imagine doing that to someone especially if I valued their art.
Its so bad that we've been told not to offer suggestions since they get pissed off given how much they're going through.
Not being able to anticipate unforeseen issues is one thing, but imagine if the companies focused on appeasing smaller markets and reduced their overheads, moving their marketing investment towards artists/developers instead, putting them at the forefront of the games they make, and prioritising them over profits.
I agree merit is important, though its interpretation can be extremely fluid in a competitive market that is more predicated on making wealth than creating art in several cases, especially in AAA.
What's needed is more transparency so we don't all have to hide behind our opinions. And a change in the mindset that you are only good at your art when you get into a dream company. The best artists have never let that become their motivation when they approached their creativity.
That is the message that I'm trying to get across when I look at what makes becoming a character artist worth it.
Needs to be more than just the job, and newcomers really need to know the difference between what it takes and what the industry has to offer.
Being in (any) industry is great and all, but unless one is a studio founder or somehow manages to negociate royalties then any hour poured into a salary job is just never coming back, ever, in any form (besides maybe recognition and portfolio). One gets paid for their time of course (and sometimes very well) but if the job suddently stops then the standard of living stops as well. Whereas with paid tutorials and downloadable content one litterally earns money as one sleeps while *also* sharing knowledge and skills with the community. Who in their right mind wouldn't want to do that ? This is also way more satisfying that speculating stocks, because with content creation there is the gratification of being compensated for actually creating something of value that people can make use of as opposed to just gambling with thin air.
I'd say this is not so much a game industry thing, but rather a very real universal thing that anyone should strive for - and it's only natural for any senior artist in their late 20s/early 30s to start thinking that way.
Tutoring is a bit different since it falls back into being paid by the hour, hence not a passive stream. But it develops connections and visibililty so I can see the benefits there too.
I am working at a place that has the reputation for crunch and had people talking to the media about how bad it is. I can't speak for anybody, but myself and what I am seeing from the people around me. I get in at 9 and leave around 7 or 8 in the evening while I am taking no breaks. Why? Because I love doing it like that, I love working on the project and I love that the people around me are putting the same effort in there and the mentality is "if we can improve something we are doing it no matter how much work it is". I am honestly expecting if you would give this team another year to finish the project that they would simply crunch for an additional year without any need for pressure from above. And this is the reason why I actually like working there.
I could definitely earn somewhere else more, even working signifcantly less, but to me the complete package of this place offers me surpasses alternatives. Keep in mind, usually having a place like this in your CV opens doors and yet people decide to stay for years and years. I guess they are all too dumb to not get exploited - there is no other explanation, right?
For the other topic of why doing tutorials - who would have thought that people who were driven and passionate enough to become good enough to be considered among the best in the world in their field, would show enough work ethic to produce tutorials/classes outside of their regular job? Especially in an industry where they get a chance to give back to the community the same way they got it taught from others before. Add to that that it actually gives you an additional income and the alternative would be that you just produce art for yourself in that same time. Again the only explanation for that must be they are completely abused and desparate and that's why they work so hard in their off time... I've yet to see someone at the peak of his profession being a workoholic...
But yes, working in the AAA-industy brainwashes you and you don't see the negatives anymore, you don't want things to change and you want to see the next generation get exploited as much as you are. Keeping everything nicely black and white makes it easier to understand. Especially you don't want your friends to be overwhelmed by reality when you get them that sweet job the more qualified people got robbed of...
I really respect your opinion as you are coming from a side that I basically agree, but you oversimplify this.
My contract situation is a bit different than the regular teams as I am just insourced for a couple of months (mine is actually worse, but that's a long story and I deliberatly decided to stick to it and not go with an alternative that I had, fully aware of the long term). But yes, overtime is paid for the whole team and it actually isn't mandatory. And if there is a crisis in your family you simply go and deal with it - you are surrounded by humans, not monsters.
I am going to be honest - places like this are not for everyone and I absolutely get it if someone doesn't like it and moves on. I don't consider those who went and talked to the press to be the weak links. I have no clue who they were, but generally speaking I do understand why people might want to go elsewhere and that is completely fine. I for myself have not decided if I would take an offer for a permanent position yet, no rush to do so after 2 out of 6 months of the gig. In any case the workload is rather working in their favour and not against them in my case, but I also don't have pets, no plans for children, I am absolutely not a social person and my girlfriend understands my motivation and has no issues with the time I spend there (probably I have a bigger issue to have her doing more of the household besides her job and me being less of a help at home).
Now if you do value work-life-balance more than working, which is totally legitmate and makes me not think lesser of someone, you will see this situation differently. But at the end of the day it doesn't come down to working hours vs pay. For me to work on a project like this, surrounded by some of the most bad ass people I know, all pushing towards their own limits and the limits of the tech involved, striving for a reslut that might be the game of they year in a highly competitive field - that gives me more than anything else in life. Knowing that I could keep up with that and deliver on the high expectations of teammates (and players) is something I wanted to know if I can do. That's also an experience who no one will be ever capable of taking away from me - so fuck the money, spare time and everything, I fulfiled a personal need that I couldn't get anywhere else.
Now what the future holds and how long I will stay is a completely different matter. The point the you are underestimating is that the workers can leave and go somewhere else. When you are among the best in your field you get to choose where you want to go (not 100%, but you have options). You are not a victim of the system.
Going on to the old CEO debate... coming from parents who grew up in a communist country, I totally get the mentality of them being overpaid and yadda yadda yadda... and yes, artists are definitely hopelessly underpaid compared to developers and traditional management staff (producers, project managers, finance,...). This should change, but then there is reality and all that crap making it a slow change. I don't even want to go there and talk about the same thing that can be said about every freaking industry out there regarding CEO'S pays. Its all out there, talked about, discussed from every angle imaginable. This here isn't the place for it and people have their own legitimate opinions on it.
From my side though - I don't want to have my own company. I'm bored out of my mind any time I have to deal with legal and financial shit (and yeah, I have a law degree, but when it comes to my own stuff, I simply don't want to spend my time with these things). I actually don't even want to deal with other department issues - I don't want to care about the details of gameplay, animations, marketing, coding,... I don't want to hear about that if its not related to my tasks and we have to solve somehting. So yes, big studios are the place I want to be, so I can focus on my team's work and leave the other stuff to people I completely trust to nail it 1000x better than I would ever be able to. But this means big teams, big organisations, big money and big CEO paychecks... All I can do is get the best contract for myself out of it and I'm fine with that.