Good article, but I'm a little confused on who its targeting exactly. Like is this hiring for programmers, artists, managers, producers? How much experience?
And I don't think its addressing a actual problem, it makes it seem like there are more positions then there are qualified candidates to fill them, but I'm guessing that depends on what you're hiring for?
If you're hiring graduates and aren't getting more applicants than positions you're doing something very wrong indeed.
However, there is a very real problem if you're talking about trying to hire senior people.
IMO there are two main issues.. 1: money Games industry salaries are markedly lower than equivalent salaries in other tech industries - I believe the gap is smaller in the US than over here in the UK but still fairly significant.
2: working conditions I don't mean crunch etc. I mean that things like flexible working hours, remote working, benefits etc. tend to lag behind other industries (in general)
What used to keep games people doing games was the nature of the work, these days there are opportunities to do exciting and creative things outside of games and the companies offering them aren't shy about approaching experienced game developers with tasty looking offers.
This is tough. I wouldn't know what's right. After a while, anyone can be a good fit to do the work. The other thing would be if the artist is a good fit with the team, or if it fits within the office culture. And yes, money/salary/rate would also be the issue.
There's a large pool of entry-level talent eager to work in games, this drives down entry-level salaries, which in turn drives down raises/promotions, which affects salary bands for senior-level roles.
There's a large pool of entry-level talent eager to work in games, this drives down entry-level salaries, which in turn drives down raises/promotions, which affects salary bands for senior-level roles.
The one challenge is what exactly "Entry level" talent means in game development. Reading from adverts for entry level positions, they may range from "1 - 3 years experience" "atleast 2 published titles"
and in some cases, they don't have these requirements (what entry level ought to be) But here on polycount, and as general advice for the sake of being competitive an entry level portfolio ought to be as good as a seniors in the quality of the work. which is something I've rarely seen in the sense that I cannot look at someone at that level and say that they are entry level unless I was meaning to shortchange them on their salary for business reasons.
So minus the actual industry experience, just how much of a difference is there between an entry level candidate and a senior, and how does it reflect internally in the studio and its pipeline? Is there any justification in capping a juniors rate other then because they are considered dispensable? Its not like the seniors fared any better, they were likely the first to get laid off.
One thing I did notice was that many AAA game studios had their own leveling systems which decided whether you were entry level or a senior. Now while this is common, one problem my colleagues faced was never actually getting the responsibility they needed to level up. In fact they were encouraged to quit, get experience elsewhere and then return with no guarantee that a position may be available to them.
The single ones were okay with this, but uprooting ones life and family isn't always an option. Add to this apprenticeship programs and internships supported by government grants and tax credits with the endorsement of local schools that don't quite produce graduates with stellar portfolios, and you have a right mess on your hands that only benefits the studios.
Its kinda why the marketing terms like top tier, ninja, samurai, rockstar make very little sense in the grand scheme of things.
poopipe said: ...these days there are opportunities to do exciting
and creative things outside of games and the companies offering them
aren't shy about approaching experienced game developers with tasty
looking offers.
This.
Just recently a couple of mates, were offered and duly accepted a substantial remuneration package too work remotely, also I think will eventually relocate abroad to where the company is based (high profile motor sport division) so yes disparity in terms of financial compensation can be quite significant, though it must be said that these guys have commensurate experience plus obvious skillset to fulfill their assigned roles.
poopipe said: ...these days there are opportunities to do exciting
and creative things outside of games and the companies offering them
aren't shy about approaching experienced game developers with tasty
looking offers.
This.
Just recently a couple of mates, were offered and duly accepted a substantial remuneration package too work remotely, also I think will eventually relocate abroad to where the company is based (high profile motor sport division) so yes disparity in terms of financial compensation can be quite significant, though it must be said that these guys have commensurate experience plus obvious skillset to fulfill their assigned roles.
...lucky so 'n so's : /
The entire industry needs to encourage working remotely, atleast for art, with flexible development cycles. All this mad paranoia about trade secrets leaking needs to stop as does the competitiveness between studios. More budget towards development instead of marketing. As so many early access titles (like Ark Survival evolved) have proven, you can keep game development open ended, involve your fans and still profit substantially with fair compensation for all.
But as you're aware, this industry is dogmatically profit driven, no two ways about it, ever since it's modern inception like way back in the day, Noland Bushnell "Atari" era, so it's 'business' culture is fairly much engrained orthodoxy across the board and positive change for the betterment encapsulating everyone concerned will likely be an uphill grind into the foreseeable future.
Yeah, annoyingly frustrating, however I think this state of affairs will eventually become unsustainable, if external legislative authority pre-emp's wholesale internal restructure, top down. It's not pie in sky wishful thinking either, examples via other disparate industries outside our bubble should serve as an equitable solution template to what can be achieved, 'kicking up a fuss' is but the first step on the road toward sustained beneficial returns for us all.
Going to play devil's advocate here, as it's often healthy to be realistic and pragmatic.
> The entire industry needs to encourage working remotely, atleast for art, with flexible development cycles. Working remotely has its benefits, however not everyone can perform properly on their own, especially not the new inexperienced hires in my experience.
Lack of discipline is the chief issue, but also communication can suffer (lack of casual in-person encounters, higher barrier to chat, etc.).
New hires also tend to use the same workspace and equipment for both work and play, which often leads to poor self discipline.
Not always, but this occurs much less in a shared work environment.
> All this mad paranoia about trade secrets leaking needs to stop as does the competitiveness between studios. This remains a real problem. Have you worked in a leadership role? Competition is a real thing, with real consequences.
> More budget towards development instead of marketing. Marketing is still required to get eyeballs on your product. Have you tried to find customers in today's saturated online climate? It's not easy and it's not cheap.
> As so many early access titles (like Ark Survival evolved) have proven, you can keep game development open ended, involve your fans and still profit substantially with fair compensation for all. Small % can do this effectively, rare to get there.
Keep up the good flight though. Change can be had, if you stick with it.
I am not sure I agree with most of those suggestions @NikhilR .
Working remote isn't going to work but for the smallest portion of people. Besides that practical road block, I don't think it's preferable anyway. Leaders need to be finding ways to connect people more, not less. Nothing good comes from disconnection, but lots of bad things do.
Big budgets go to marketing because it pays off. The big error I see in budgeting is the arms race for graphics. It was a mistake to begin with but that's hindsight so whatever. It cost so much to make a game now that it's too big of a risk if something flops. So you got people operating on fear, which is the worst way to operate.
They'll figure it out on their own, but life will get much better for the grunts when they realize they have the power and work collectively to exercise it. Problem is I think the crowd is meek in general, so it's going to take a long time. There is also the "my daddy beat me so I beat you" syndrome, and survivor syndrome. All normal human stuff that I don't think will ever go away. That's why change happens so slow. In any case, you cannot fix somebodies flaws by defining them and explaining to them. That just makes you an asshole they won't listen to. The only way to lead effectively is to demonstrate by example. I think the spyder games guy that gave that GDC talk is a great example of sustainable business practice and mindset. He isn't trying the be the greatest ever and pushing all cylinders to the max. He calls himself a humble toy maker and delivers consistency over the decades.
One other point, solutions have to be designed to work for people as they are and have always been. Not an idealized or imagined version of people. Any solution that depends on people being better is no solution at all.
And you also have to consider that trying to solve some problem within the games industry such as abusive crunch is like solving one expression in an equation that is 1000x larger. Things can certainly improve but there is a threshold -- the part cannot exceed the whole. So if the whole is fundamentally wrong, what can you do?
That's not meant to discourage but you have to understand scope of a problem to make a realistic solution.
The way I see it, so long as culture values individual wealth as success, greed will be the norm. And so long as wealth is tied to money, which can be easily horded, it will be the greediest who have the most power over others. So the only real fix to all problems is to change culture. And the good news is that all people can change culture. All you have to do is start being a leader whereever you are and show people what right looks like.
Being a leader isn't difficult. Anybody can do it. Introverted, extroverted, smart, dumb, ugly, stupid, doesn't matter. Be calmer than others. Listen to everybody before making a decision. If there needs to be action happening and nobody is making it happen, make it happen. If people are going to fast and need to slow down, tell them. That's pretty much it. You just pay attention to the team and speak up when you think it's going off course.
There was some guy in silicon value who changed his multimillion dollar tech business model. Paid everybody minimum wage of $70k a year and took a big hit from his own finances to help fund the change. Company is expanding 5 years later, but more importantly there is strong indicators that the humans in the company are enjoying increased welfare and happiness. And what the fuck else is the point of going to work everyday?
Even if you can't become a leader, you need to look out for guys like this and empower them. And when you find the baby-dick energy morons rising up the ranks, making life hell for them. Form coalitions against them. Do whatever you can to take them down. Who is in charge makes all the difference.
Another BS article about the supposed "labor shortage."
Its not too different from what's happening with Toronto's housing market. That shit hole of a city is getting worse because of developers manipulating the supply and making it seem like there is demand to live there.
What's needed is a balance between working on site, having freelance contractors and remote working for seniors.
This will only happen if they adjust development cycles to priorities the needs of employees over appeasing the market and shareholders.
Working 3rd party QA gives a good idea of what the companies priorities are, many times their timelines make little to no sense. I mean it makes sense to them I'm sure from a business perspective, but the lot of us are wondering what the hell is all the rush?
I mean many of these companies have dedicated fan bases locked to a franchise, would it make any difference if they spent more time to get a product out rather than have a Mass Effect Andromeda style fiasco?
For instance fans have been clamouring for a new Splinter Cell for years, but with the author dead and no books to base the game on, Ubisoft hasn't moved an inch though might be internally, who knows. But the fans are still around. And by marketing budget I meant being sensible about it. For instance telling a gang of fans about how great a company is over drinks is utterly useless. They would buy the games and work for the studio even if they had to sell their parents to slavery for it.
I can't understand why they need to oversell themselves to make it look like they are the absolute perfect place for graduates when their development record does not show for it. (save for a few companies that actually are genuine about where they are in the market)
And some of these companies spend an absolute fortune on rent to be in hub cities, sharing the "investment" with governments funding them. WIth a cushion like that it makes little sense as to why its such an exclusive industry to get into if they have so little to lose even if a game bombs on release.
The idea of art collaboratives like Dekogon is a good way to achieve a balance, since artists become independent creatives servicing corporate and maintain their autonomy. Most outsource studios operate in the same manner, though its important that they prioritise their interest and work at fair rates. Its challenging though, luckily 3D Art as a skill has a lot more applications outside of the games industry.
If the goal is to manipulate so that you have more leverage in hiring, why would say you are having trouble filling roles? This would give the potential hire more confidence, right?
Also, consider the source. IGDA is just a collective of game devs, right?
If the goal is to manipulate so that you have more leverage in hiring, why would say you are having trouble filling roles? This would give the potential hire more confidence, right?
Also, consider the source. IGDA is just a collective of game devs, right?
I'm not sure if they are getting any leverage in hiring by doing that, or if they actually are even looking for candidates. Like they outsource a fat lot of the work, so you have something akin to remote working already in place.
The consensus however does seem to be that they are always looking for talent, so either everyone sucks and they can't find anyone or the people they currently have working for them are enough for them, or they don't want anyone to know what they know because its bad for business if a competitor finds out how much everything sucks.
The internal levelling system can be pretty restrictive and very very rarely are you given work close to what you had to do for a solo portfolio piece since everyone works collaboratively. In my logic, I try to see where I can better myself and work towards becoming a better artist with the resources I have available to me, and look into other applications for the skill.
But it is difficult to properly assess where I've fallen short with regards to an application (especially if you're ghosted), so better to focus on what they have to say instead of speculating, which isn't super informative most of the time but is easy to move on from.
My most ultimate rejection for instance was one that took 2 1/2 years, during which time I was blocked from applying to the position again, and this was a AAA company so go figure. I tried multiple times to approach HR to tell them to reject me, so I could update them with new work, but never received a reply.
Problem is that there is no transparency in exactly what is going on, on the inside, very few artists working there who jump ship are willing to speak out publicly about what made them do that.
But if you see glassdoor its pretty obvious that it can be quite a mess with the politics and such. Reform is absolutely necessary. Like if they are confident that poaching is the only way to score a top tier, ninja, samurai, rockstar, don't put up the ad in the first place. What is the point of having open houses and pitching tents at schools looking for top graduates if you don't really care. Seems like an incredible sense of disconnect because of the corporate nature of the operation.
I mean unless the money you're using to do that comes from the schools you endorse, or a government grant that is conditional on doing so, then of course it makes sense from a business perspective.
Wow, you have a very negative view of the problem.
I probably haven't worked in the company you're dealing with. But I've been involved on the inside of game dev hiring structures at multiple studios.
You make it sound like there's a Deep State conspiracy against applicants.
I wouldn't say its a conspiracy. It really does make sense for business reasons for a corporation when you think about it. And in many ways with the grant/tax credit system, the governments really do believe they are helping graduates secure full time permanent work. They don't care much beyond that if the studio liquidates and everyone loses their jobs.
Can't really speculate about the kickbacks they receive in the process, but that's still just business as usual.
And not every studio works with the same priorities, so really depends on what you want in the end in an unregulated market.
Seriously, hiring for certain roles (typically at senior level or above) is insanely difficult, because there just aren't enough people around who are good enough to do the job. If you think that isn't true, you clearly haven't had any exposure to hiring in a large/established studio.
Seriously, hiring for certain roles (typically at senior level or above) is insanely difficult, because there just aren't enough people around who are good enough to do the job. If you think that isn't true, you clearly haven't had any exposure to hiring in a large/established studio.
Just wondering whether potential candidates for these roles are actually tested for their ability or if recruiters are more focused on poaching talent which is why it's difficult. Does this differ between roles such as between character and environment art. A lot of specialized work such as hair, cloth, heads.etc is already outsourced in many AAA pipelines so when it comes to hiring a senior for in studio what sort of skills do they actually need and just how much work is there to go around per artist? And how long would it take to train a mid level to do a senior's task for certain roles. From your experience could you give an example of a senior hiring that proved to challenging? Just trying to understand if the challenge is because the skill isn't there or if it's difficult to poach a senior happily employed at a certain company/Visa issues
Experience plays a huge role in whether a candidate is hired for a senior role.
Where I've been on the hiring end, we've needed artists who not only were able to make good assets, but who also had experienced the full development cycle. From pre-production, all the way through final polish & ship.
Someone who understands first hand how important pacing is, not adding last minute features, importance of good planning, follow thru, testing & polish, etc. etc.
Then there are the all-important people skills. How to manage tough situations, how to train & develop juniors, how to motivate a team.
I hate to hammer on the experience issue, but it really is key for performing well in a senior role.
Experience plays a huge role in whether a candidate is hired for a senior role.
Where I've been on the hiring end, we've needed artists who not only were able to make good assets, but who also had experienced the full development cycle. From pre-production, all the way through final polish & ship.
Someone who understands first hand how important pacing is, not adding last minute features, importance of good planning, follow thru, testing & polish, etc. etc.
Then there are the all-important people skills. How to manage tough situations, how to train & develop juniors, how to motivate a team.
I hate to hammer on the experience issue, but it really is key for performing well in a senior role.
If all companies valued experience beyond what game development allows, provided the skill level expected is met as it says on the job advert, (Like IT firms do) they wouldn't have a problem filling roles. They also go about it in a very clandestine and erratic way with little to no feedback or accountability which I hope works for them, but is certainly confusing for people applying.
It is also important to make that distinction on whether the advertisement is looking for a senior, mid or junior which is usually never done. For instance something that asks for all of what you mentioned is set as "entry level" which makes no sense.
Sometimes there are ads that specify senior, alongside ads that seem like junior to mid, but they hire a senior for both.
Its also very vital to differentiate between game industry experience and other real world and prior career experience that can give considerable value.
To elaborate, regarding the aspects you mentioned (good planning, follow thru, testing & polish and people skills) the experience I have in that is way beyond what game development allows considering I had to manage several hundred patients during my career as a dentist.
Working a 7am to 9 pm government hospital schedule across multiple departments is not easy.
The fact that this totally escapes so many of them is astoundingly incompetent. Rather it seems plausible since they are hired for their art competency exclusively (apparently), so the lack of awareness about the real world outside of that really isn't surprising.
Like in some cases I've been told to hide that experience since I wouldn't be a culture fit among the younger people which really is speculative nonsense given that many people I work with in third party QA are fresh out of school and there is no problem.
In fact if there is one thing that is rampant in the industry it is speculation. Because of the clandestine nature of how the corporate side operates no one really knows what the hell is going on.
Its why I posted that twitter feed of Jon Troy Nickle, there is lot of wisdom in that.
I think for senior roles, assuming it's a leadership/managerial role, you want to look for people who are not specialist in one thing for ten or twenty years, but have a wide range of skill and experience. Specialization is great for when you need to solve a specific problem quickly, but it does retard the individual in a way.
That's a good reason the best teams promote cross-training, as well as constantly groom people for leadership from day one of entering the organization. It's forward thinking investment.
I think for senior roles, assuming it's a leadership/managerial role, you want to look for people who are not specialist in one thing for ten or twenty years, but have a wide range of skill and experience. Specialization is great for when you need to solve a specific problem quickly, but it does retard the individual in a way.
That's a good reason the best teams promote cross-training, as well as constantly groom people for leadership from day one of entering the organization. It's forward thinking investment.
The silly thing is given the way they go about hiring seniors (disregarding prior relevant experience in other fields) it really is lacking of a forward thinking mentality.
For instance how do I evaluate my seniority? Do I look to see if I have published titles or trending artstation entries or does the experience I have working in healthcare provide a sound understanding of the manner of competency and professionalism I can provide a company on the job? Would an art lead interviewing me, take this very important detail into account given their very limited life experience? Where exactly do I fit in all the speculation that follows the rejection and ghosting? Is it all down to my portfolio? Maybe I should scrap it all and start over?
Then again its likely just not the right company, though sometimes its easier to move about, if you have them on your resume to satisfy that elusive work experience requirement.
Personally to all that imposter syndrome BS above, I don't really give a damn unless I get proper feedback that I can follow up with specific to the job I applied to from the people who actually interviewed me.
I think when the stakes are too high it prevents people from experimenting outside the norm. Taking on perceived risk.
So while a hiring manager might feel like it could be a good thing to hire somebody with experience outside the specific field, if it seems like everything is on the line they will just stick with the decision they can back up to higher ups because "that's how we've always done it."
That's why smaller, lighter, higher skilled teams of risk takers can out perform entire battalions of regular troops.
"That's a good reason the best teams promote
cross-training, as well as constantly groom people for leadership from
day one of entering the organization. It's forward thinking investment. "
Now that brought back memories of a past life, more like "critical thinking" when said existence was dangling by a thread
"That's a good reason the best teams promote
cross-training, as well as constantly groom people for leadership from
day one of entering the organization. It's forward thinking investment. "
Now that brought back memories of a past life, more like "critical thinking" when said existence was dangling by a thread
Right. When shit gets suuuurious for realsies no more of the every man for himself bs. You want to know that motherfuckers know everything it's possible for them to know!
If you went for some sort of invasive surgery would you want the surgeon to have 10 years experience as a people surgeon or 10 years experience as a horse surgeon?
The basic layout of parts is the same, the principles are the same and the scalpel skills are obviously transferable but really, it's not quite the same when you get down to details is it?
Not the best analogy. I trusted army surgeons work on me
But in any case, if you can't fill your lead surgeon role and the veterinarian is applying, it would be dumb not to hire them. It's all the same skills, only the anatomy is (slightly) different.
And just, for the record, I spent a year as an inpatient at a hospital that performs more surgeries than any other, and is widely regarded as one of the best there is for that sort of thing. I had to argue with a team of surgeons while under the influence of narcotics that they had my paperwork wrong and were going to operate on the wrong limb. A team of surgeons was wrong, and me, who was on morphine and had been for weeks, had to correct them all. And not just correct them, but argue with them and convince them.
So I have little faith in institutions and status quo. Everybody is an idiot, but the worst ones are the ones who think they aren't.
Replies
Like is this hiring for programmers, artists, managers, producers? How much experience?
And I don't think its addressing a actual problem, it makes it seem like there are more positions then there are qualified candidates to fill them, but I'm guessing that depends on what you're hiring for?
However, there is a very real problem if you're talking about trying to hire senior people.
IMO there are two main issues..
1: money
Games industry salaries are markedly lower than equivalent salaries in other tech industries - I believe the gap is smaller in the US than over here in the UK but still fairly significant.
2: working conditions
I don't mean crunch etc. I mean that things like flexible working hours, remote working, benefits etc. tend to lag behind other industries (in general)
What used to keep games people doing games was the nature of the work, these days there are opportunities to do exciting and creative things outside of games and the companies offering them aren't shy about approaching experienced game developers with tasty looking offers.
After a while, anyone can be a good fit to do the work. The other thing would be if the artist is a good fit with the team, or if it fits within the office culture. And yes, money/salary/rate would also be the issue.
Reading from adverts for entry level positions, they may range from
"1 - 3 years experience"
"atleast 2 published titles"
and in some cases, they don't have these requirements (what entry level ought to be)
But here on polycount, and as general advice for the sake of being competitive an entry level portfolio ought to be as good as a seniors in the quality of the work. which is something I've rarely seen in the sense that I cannot look at someone at that level and say that they are entry level unless I was meaning to shortchange them on their salary for business reasons.
So minus the actual industry experience, just how much of a difference is there between an entry level candidate and a senior, and how does it reflect internally in the studio and its pipeline? Is there any justification in capping a juniors rate other then because they are considered dispensable?
Its not like the seniors fared any better, they were likely the first to get laid off.
One thing I did notice was that many AAA game studios had their own leveling systems which decided whether you were entry level or a senior.
Now while this is common, one problem my colleagues faced was never actually getting the responsibility they needed to level up.
In fact they were encouraged to quit, get experience elsewhere and then return with no guarantee that a position may be available to them.
The single ones were okay with this, but uprooting ones life and family isn't always an option.
Add to this apprenticeship programs and internships supported by government grants and tax credits with the endorsement of local schools that don't quite produce graduates with stellar portfolios, and you have a right mess on your hands that only benefits the studios.
Its kinda why the marketing terms like top tier, ninja, samurai, rockstar make very little sense in the grand scheme of things.
More budget towards development instead of marketing.
As so many early access titles (like Ark Survival evolved) have proven, you can keep game development open ended, involve your fans and still profit substantially with fair compensation for all.
But as you're aware, this industry is dogmatically profit driven, no two ways about it, ever since it's modern inception like way back in the day, Noland Bushnell "Atari" era, so it's 'business' culture is fairly much engrained orthodoxy across the board and positive change for the betterment encapsulating everyone concerned will likely be an uphill grind into the foreseeable future.
Yeah, annoyingly frustrating, however I think this state of affairs will eventually become unsustainable, if external legislative authority pre-emp's wholesale internal restructure, top down. It's not pie in sky wishful thinking either, examples via other disparate industries outside our bubble should serve as an equitable solution template to what can be achieved, 'kicking up a fuss' is but the first step on the road toward sustained beneficial returns for us all.
> The entire industry needs to encourage working remotely, atleast for art, with flexible development cycles.
Working remotely has its benefits, however not everyone can perform properly on their own, especially not the new inexperienced hires in my experience.
Lack of discipline is the chief issue, but also communication can suffer (lack of casual in-person encounters, higher barrier to chat, etc.).
New hires also tend to use the same workspace and equipment for both work and play, which often leads to poor self discipline.
Not always, but this occurs much less in a shared work environment.
> All this mad paranoia about trade secrets leaking needs to stop as does the competitiveness between studios.
This remains a real problem. Have you worked in a leadership role? Competition is a real thing, with real consequences.
> More budget towards development instead of marketing.
Marketing is still required to get eyeballs on your product. Have you tried to find customers in today's saturated online climate? It's not easy and it's not cheap.
> As so many early access titles (like Ark Survival evolved) have proven, you can keep game development open ended, involve your fans and still profit substantially with fair compensation for all.
Small % can do this effectively, rare to get there.
Keep up the good flight though. Change can be had, if you stick with it.
@Eric Chadwick @Alex Javor
What's needed is a balance between working on site, having freelance contractors and remote working for seniors.
This will only happen if they adjust development cycles to priorities the needs of employees over appeasing the market and shareholders.
Working 3rd party QA gives a good idea of what the companies priorities are, many times their timelines make little to no sense. I mean it makes sense to them I'm sure from a business perspective, but the lot of us are wondering what the hell is all the rush?
I mean many of these companies have dedicated fan bases locked to a franchise, would it make any difference if they spent more time to get a product out rather than have a Mass Effect Andromeda style fiasco?
For instance fans have been clamouring for a new Splinter Cell for years, but with the author dead and no books to base the game on, Ubisoft hasn't moved an inch though might be internally, who knows.
But the fans are still around.
And by marketing budget I meant being sensible about it. For instance telling a gang of fans about how great a company is over drinks is utterly useless. They would buy the games and work for the studio even if they had to sell their parents to slavery for it.
I can't understand why they need to oversell themselves to make it look like they are the absolute perfect place for graduates when their development record does not show for it. (save for a few companies that actually are genuine about where they are in the market)
And some of these companies spend an absolute fortune on rent to be in hub cities, sharing the "investment" with governments funding them. WIth a cushion like that it makes little sense as to why its such an exclusive industry to get into if they have so little to lose even if a game bombs on release.
The idea of art collaboratives like Dekogon is a good way to achieve a balance, since artists become independent creatives servicing corporate and maintain their autonomy.
Most outsource studios operate in the same manner, though its important that they prioritise their interest and work at fair rates.
Its challenging though, luckily 3D Art as a skill has a lot more applications outside of the games industry.
Like they outsource a fat lot of the work, so you have something akin to remote working already in place.
The consensus however does seem to be that they are always looking for talent, so either everyone sucks and they can't find anyone or the people they currently have working for them are enough for them, or they don't want anyone to know what they know because its bad for business if a competitor finds out how much everything sucks.
The internal levelling system can be pretty restrictive and very very rarely are you given work close to what you had to do for a solo portfolio piece since everyone works collaboratively.
In my logic, I try to see where I can better myself and work towards becoming a better artist with the resources I have available to me, and look into other applications for the skill.
But it is difficult to properly assess where I've fallen short with regards to an application (especially if you're ghosted), so better to focus on what they have to say instead of speculating, which isn't super informative most of the time but is easy to move on from.
My most ultimate rejection for instance was one that took 2 1/2 years, during which time I was blocked from applying to the position again, and this was a AAA company so go figure. I tried multiple times to approach HR to tell them to reject me, so I could update them with new work, but never received a reply.
Problem is that there is no transparency in exactly what is going on, on the inside, very few artists working there who jump ship are willing to speak out publicly about what made them do that.
But if you see glassdoor its pretty obvious that it can be quite a mess with the politics and such.
Reform is absolutely necessary. Like if they are confident that poaching is the only way to score a top tier, ninja, samurai, rockstar, don't put up the ad in the first place. What is the point of having open houses and pitching tents at schools looking for top graduates if you don't really care.
Seems like an incredible sense of disconnect because of the corporate nature of the operation.
I mean unless the money you're using to do that comes from the schools you endorse, or a government grant that is conditional on doing so, then of course it makes sense from a business perspective.
I probably haven't worked in the company you're dealing with. But I've been involved on the inside of game dev hiring structures at multiple studios.
You make it sound like there's a Deep State conspiracy against applicants.
They don't care much beyond that if the studio liquidates and everyone loses their jobs.
Can't really speculate about the kickbacks they receive in the process, but that's still just business as usual.
And not every studio works with the same priorities, so really depends on what you want in the end in an unregulated market.
Even if market never gets regulated, as artists we all still have the option to do better.
Reminds me of this series of tweets from Hazardous,
https://twitter.com/HazardousArts/status/1227770016214315008
Does this differ between roles such as between character and environment art.
A lot of specialized work such as hair, cloth, heads.etc is already outsourced in many AAA pipelines so when it comes to hiring a senior for in studio what sort of skills do they actually need and just how much work is there to go around per artist?
And how long would it take to train a mid level to do a senior's task for certain roles.
From your experience could you give an example of a senior hiring that proved to challenging?
Just trying to understand if the challenge is because the skill isn't there or if it's difficult to poach a senior happily employed at a certain company/Visa issues
Where I've been on the hiring end, we've needed artists who not only were able to make good assets, but who also had experienced the full development cycle. From pre-production, all the way through final polish & ship.
Someone who understands first hand how important pacing is, not adding last minute features, importance of good planning, follow thru, testing & polish, etc. etc.
Then there are the all-important people skills. How to manage tough situations, how to train & develop juniors, how to motivate a team.
I hate to hammer on the experience issue, but it really is key for performing well in a senior role.
If all companies valued experience beyond what game development allows, provided the skill level expected is met as it says on the job advert, (Like IT firms do) they wouldn't have a problem filling roles.
They also go about it in a very clandestine and erratic way with little to no feedback or accountability which I hope works for them, but is certainly confusing for people applying.
It is also important to make that distinction on whether the advertisement is looking for a senior, mid or junior which is usually never done.
For instance something that asks for all of what you mentioned is set as "entry level" which makes no sense.
Sometimes there are ads that specify senior, alongside ads that seem like junior to mid, but they hire a senior for both.
Its also very vital to differentiate between game industry experience and other real world and prior career experience that can give considerable value.
To elaborate, regarding the aspects you mentioned (good planning, follow thru, testing & polish and people skills) the experience I have in that is way beyond what game development allows considering I had to manage several hundred patients during my career as a dentist.
Working a 7am to 9 pm government hospital schedule across multiple departments is not easy.
The fact that this totally escapes so many of them is astoundingly incompetent.
Rather it seems plausible since they are hired for their art competency exclusively (apparently), so the lack of awareness about the real world outside of that really isn't surprising.
Like in some cases I've been told to hide that experience since I wouldn't be a culture fit among the younger people which really is speculative nonsense given that many people I work with in third party QA are fresh out of school and there is no problem.
In fact if there is one thing that is rampant in the industry it is speculation. Because of the clandestine nature of how the corporate side operates no one really knows what the hell is going on.
Its why I posted that twitter feed of Jon Troy Nickle, there is lot of wisdom in that.
For instance how do I evaluate my seniority?
Do I look to see if I have published titles or trending artstation entries or does the experience I have working in healthcare provide a sound understanding of the manner of competency and professionalism I can provide a company on the job?
Would an art lead interviewing me, take this very important detail into account given their very limited life experience?
Where exactly do I fit in all the speculation that follows the rejection and ghosting?
Is it all down to my portfolio? Maybe I should scrap it all and start over?
Then again its likely just not the right company, though sometimes its easier to move about, if you have them on your resume to satisfy that elusive work experience requirement.
Personally to all that imposter syndrome BS above, I don't really give a damn unless I get proper feedback that I can follow up with specific to the job I applied to from the people who actually interviewed me.
If you went for some sort of invasive surgery would you want the surgeon to have 10 years experience as a people surgeon or 10 years experience as a horse surgeon?
The basic layout of parts is the same, the principles are the same and the scalpel skills are obviously transferable but really, it's not quite the same when you get down to details is it?