So people are getting worked up because this guy finds amateur artists, gives them probably their first commercial job and pays them what they ask for?
Ninjas, dude its all about the attutude the dude has.
Its not so much about the money as it is treating artists with very little respect. Its like spitting on your plumber while he tries to fix your drain on his first job ever.
Ive been screwed over for little money not because i didnt know it was dodgy, i just needed money bad at the time so i jumped at the only option i had. I think i was pretty depressed for those 8 months. And yes this was an art job.
This should be enough /\ you must have been with my previous "employer".
I have two jobs, and even though my second job is not industry related, I have management that acts that way, and let's put it this way, when the day comes that I quit (which shouldn't be too far from now, if all goes well!) I'm just walking out the door and never coming back. No one likes being taken advantage of when it's blatantly obvious. Like the saying goes, "They're pissing on my leg and don't even have the decency to call it rain."
So people are getting worked up because this guy finds amateur artists, gives them probably their first commercial job and pays them what they ask for?
What is the problem, I don't get it.
The problem is the dickish and manipulative way this guy sees the hiring of artist as well as the huge misconceptions he has about value of the artist he looks for. He doesnt seem to see artist as people but more like a commodity to exploit. This one was the most galling.
Keep them in the dark:
This relates back to what I talked about earlier. If an artist knows how much their artwork will increase the value of the game they will then feel they deserve that amount of money. This is not how a market economy works, you hire whoever is able to do the best job for the lowest amount of money, anything else is a loss of money on your end.
I dont blame the guy for trying to find the best value for his money but his attitude is completely souless when it comes to how he views artists as well as disrespectful. How any of you can defend this sort of dickish behavior is beyond me.
Lets say this guy actually makes it and has a big studio and has this same type of greedy/souless attitude? would you want to work for him? The studios ive seen that do the best as the ones who appreciate their workers for the talents they have. By treating them like humans instead of cogs they feel like they have an equal stake in the company and will work better and stay with a company longer.
He doesnt seem to see artist as people but more like a commodity to exploit. This one was the most galling.
Is this not this the case for a lot of 'proper' companies though? How many companies actually value the effort you put in. ok you get paid, perhaps that's enough for most people:)
I see a lot of indie games companies looking for artists on the cheap, which you can kind of understand, but to actually come out and say it in the way he did was just stupid
And yet none of you seemed to have a problem with how Rockstar San Diego treated their employees, and even supported them by purchasing their product... which further justified them to continually mistreat their employees?
There's nothing in that article I think crossed the line.
He's sleazy and does not respect or trust other people. He goes out of his way to mislead those he contracts with in an effort to scratch out a little more profit at their expense. He formulates his business tactics on the idea that he can dupe people into happily going about his bidding because he's an genius. If you've ever worked with one of those idiots, you know where the frustration comes from. It's bad enough when someone like that is a peer, let alone a manger.
He is potentially hurting his product by treating his people in a way that squashes creativity rather than encourages it and he doesn't even care.
Technically there is nothing illegal about whats he's doing, I don't really condemn his tactics if they work for him, ok good enough. I personally wouldn't operate that way, I think you can get a better product out of people if you let them take a little ownership of the thing they create. It's the difference between getting exactly what you commanded them to do, or getting a little extra at no additional cost.
He can build bridges and use them often, or he can burn it, cutting himself off to more substantial streams of creativity and cash.
There's a big difference between taking on a new artist and having to hold their hand through everything and just giving a job to someone and forgetting about it until its turned in.
He can be the petrie dish that grows new artists only to have them walk out on him, or he can grow strong relationships and have access to quality talent and never have to hope there is more barrel to scrape.
Do I think he's a numb nut for spilling his "secrets" and drawing the ire of the artists he seeks to exploit... yes, yes I do =P
And yet none of you seemed to have a problem with how Rockstar San Diego treated their employees, and even supported them by purchasing their product... which further justified them to continually mistreat their employees?
I completely agree, and more importantly don't work for people or places that treat their employees like garbage. BUT if I remember correctly the layoffs came a few weeks after the chart busting release. Those that bought had little warning their purchase went to fund a dastardly business tactic. Although it pretty much happens with every game so people might as well boycott the whole industry or wait 3-6mo to see if they have massive layoffs before buying...
There's nothing technically out of line about what he said or, as he puts it 'worded it', but he's still a sleazeball. He's really just voicing the tactics of any 'idea man' who doesn't give a shit about the industry or the pretty art that sells his games (though, if he truly is 16, I highly doubt he's made anything worth mentioning...) Good for him for being frugal and trying to save on overhead to make the most cash from whatever indie project he'd be doing - but still - He's basically saying, 'scope out the youngest, high end of mediocre artists you can find with next to no experience. Give them impossible deadlines to work against, while paying them in peanuts and take away said peanuts when they inevitably fail to meet whatever bullshit date you give them.' I dunno man, I don't know how you could read what he says without feeling at least a little bit insulted as a professional game developer.
You get what you pay for! Hopefully artists everywhere put this guy on their radar and pad their prices all cozy like.
And yet none of you seemed to have a problem with how Rockstar San Diego treated their employees, and even supported them by purchasing their product... which further justified them to continually mistreat their employees?
I agree, but I personally did not purchase RDR out of principle, and tried to persuade others I knew to do the same with little to no luck. Some people I knew purchased it because they thought it would help those workers get a big bonus at the end of the year, no one could have foreseen they were going to do the layoff, but as soon as they did I was relieved I didn't give them a dime of my money.
Here is how you deal with these people-- you never give source files for your art until you get paid (just send screenshots) and you get the work broken up into bite sized chunks.
Worst case scenario is you get stiffed for a few days of work.
Mostly what I get from this thread is that a lot of artists out there think the people contracting inexperienced artists are all stand-up guys who just want to help you out. This guy is just saying what you should already know: your employer is going to try to get the most work they can out of you while paying you as little as possible.
In turn, it is your job as an artist to get paid as much as possible while spending as little time as you can.
Of course, I have had better relationships with companies I contracted for that developed over time, but at the end of the day you are doing a job and it's about the money. Anybody trying to convince you it is about anything else is probably trying to screw you over.
ninjas: as far as never sending source files until you get paid, I had trouble with that when I freelanced, and now, as someone who occasionally hires freelancers for the company I work at, I'd often have even more trouble with it. Paying people takes time when you're going through an accounting department, and freelancers are often used when I need work implemented really fast. Sometimes there's just no time to wait to pay or be paid.
ninjas: I think it's more than that though, it's wanting to be treated like a person..
Also I'd dissagree about that last statement, I've known people to do unpaid overtime voluntarily just because they wanted things to be the best they could be, with no prompting from the employer.. now would they do that for this guy? hell no
if all you care about is doing a job for money, like mcdonalds, then yeah that logic is sound. But this guy 'keeping artists in the dark' is actually preventing people from doing the best work they can do, which sucks doesn't it? who likes working with limitations upon yourself which prevent you from doing your best work?
Ninjas, also to create a good working environment the artists and management need to have some sort of a balanced relationship. If both parties are doing the minimum of what they need to get what they want, no one is going to be particularly happy in the end. This just screams poor management to me, good capitalism, but poor management.
I don't see what the big deal is here - this guy is basically saying "this is how you hire an amateur artist to work on your game." And he's right.
It's important for artists to know this and understand that people like this are out there - if anything I think it's good that this guy has this on his website rather than the opposite. These people exist, and it happens.
Ultimately, the responsibility for having an artist be treated as a professional falls on the artist. If you're capable of producing professional quality work, then maintaining an air of professionalism that will turn these guys off and help you hook up with people who will value you. Meanwhile, if you're low-ball bidding some starving artist contract work for $400 or whatever, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
It's ultimately the artist's responsibility to look out for themselves, and not the employer/contract worker. Only one side of that equation has someone who is going to be looking out for the artist's best interests.
I'm saying this as a guy who has been burned as a guy poached on deviantart for contract work, and has learned from that and subsequently gotten contract work on this level that worked out just fine.
Keep in mind this guy isn't going to be paying anyone here for their time, because we're largely professionals. This guy isn't personally shitting on anyone here.
But this viewpoint on the ethics of the situation will be held by whoever is paying your next contract, so be aware.
I see this less as a slam on people here and more as a cautionary tale. The guys with the offers are looking to rip you off, and its your responsibility to do the opposite. If both players play well, then a fair and equitable trade will be achieved.
Ghostscape: don't you think Jon Jones' points do show that the manager looking out for the artist is actually good buisness? I agree you have to look out for no.1, but like MegaMoogle says if everyone's doing only that, the likely outcome is just bad product and sour grapes
Aesir: It is not something I did in general practice, but it is usually pretty easy to tell if someone is as dodgy as the guy who wrote the article. Unless you really need the cash, I would not work with this type of guy at all. Sometimes you just need the money though.
Once you establish that you are going to get paid, and that the company likes your work, you are on the road to a solid working relationship, which can last for years and be very rewarding for both parties. I'm actually still pretty good friends with some of the guys I contracted with, even though I don't do it anymore.
[edit]
MegaMoogle: The key to a good relationship here is for the artist to work fast. Then he doesn't have to take a lot of time, and the contractor still gets a lot of art. In fact, all the successful contract artists I have known have been super fast workers. This can work especially well for the artist if you are getting paid per asset instead of per hour.
I can honestly say, nearly EVERYONE I've been contacted with contract work have used that EXACT same platform as the basis for their negotiations.
I have NEVER had a contract job with someone who was looking out for my own personal best interest.
The only difference is, the author of this article realises that there is less leighway and less resistance in negotiating with amateurs, and it's far cheaper.
We already know this happens. Why are you guys so upset?
As far as I am concerned he is getting what he pays for. An amateur artist of mediocre quality with little to no experience who has nothing to add to the project other than the work... and the quality is of little concern.
Only things that matter are the deadline, and the cost efficiency.
.. which sounds like most producers I've worked for in this industry.
Ghostscape: don't you think Jon Jones' points do show that the manager looking out for the artist is actually good buisness? I agree you have to look out for no.1, but like MegaMoogle says if everyone's doing only that, the likely outcome is just bad product and sour grapes
I'm not saying you have to be cutthroat or ruthless, and there can certainly be a give and take, but to assume one blindly is to put your neck out without any gain.
Looking out for your artists, etc, helps you retain talent and maintain positive relationships that pay dividends in the future.
My whole point here though is that especially with contract work, and especially in small-potatoes business like this flash games guy, you can't assume that the guy offering the work is going to do you any favors. If they do, and you see they do, then work for them again, but accepting a low-ball offer or going into negotiations without any research (like this guy wants artists to do) ultimately places blame on the artist, in my opinion.
It is best for business when everyone is trustworthy and loyal and working together, but just because you trust everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't cut the cards.
Well we can all agree that really the inexperience of negotiating pay does put the artist at fault if they don't try to ask around and see if their offer is fair, but that being said, it doesn't make these practices at all right or ethical, in my personal opinion of course.
I can honestly say, nearly EVERYONE I've been contacted with contract work have used that EXACT same platform as the basis for their negotiations.
I have NEVER had a contract job with someone who was looking out for my own personal best interest.
The only difference is, the author of this article realises that there is less leighway and less resistance in negotiating with amateurs, and it's far cheaper.
We already know this happens. Why are you guys so upset?
As far as I am concerned he is getting what he pays for. An amateur artist of mediocre quality with little to no experience who has nothing to add to the project other than the work... and the quality is of little concern.
Only things that matter are the deadline, and the cost efficiency.
.. which sounds like most producers I've worked for in this industry.
While there's no denying the guy is an asshole I have to agree with JacqueChoi here, he isn't doing anything illegal and the only part that suffers directly from his practice is the quality of his own work. Maybe he'll mature later on and realize how big a role art plays in making or breaking a game, until then amateur artists are getting some experience and filling out their resum
I think the biggest issue was his tone, the matter of fact way he talked about artists as a commodity....even though artists and programmers are just that, no one likes to be told that.
He obviously is not very experienced, he never mentions work for hire agreements, nor escrow services.
The concept of what he is talking about is standard practice even with game companies to advertising companies.
Just let his article fade away giving it this much attention just draws more traffic to his site...let it die
Sorry I'm not jumping on the villagers-with-pitchforks bandwagon, but I don't entirely see what all the fuss is about.
It's incredibly offensive??? Yeah yeah it might be 'the real world', but some people reading this dropped tens of thousands on their game art education, only to read this cock-mongers ten steps to ripping off an artist.
And that's where he lost all credibility and I stopped reading.
+1 Though I kept reading.
I hope this knob-jockey's real name gets out and he's blacklisted for life. I don't really do the bandwagon thing but this guy MUST have been either ironic or dying to insult hundreds of people in one swoop.
EDIT: Oh he's just a pimply teenager? Fuck it, dunno why I got wound up :P Still hope his name gets out.
EDIT 2:
Christopher Gregorio
Never forget. Wouldnt want to work with him wouldya? :P
I've always considered it part of my job as an artist to educate myself in the ways of "not getting screwed over".
While I do think he's a jerk, I'm not holding anything against him. The kid just educated thousands, and thousands of young artists and burnt more bridges than he could've imagined.
I feel that if more artists are educated about the business of art and the common practices, and ways to market themselves, people like this would be less successful. But unfortunately, artists, especially aspiring young ones, are quick to undervalue their own work and are genuinely clueless about how to handle work for pay. I find that the most infuriating cases are the ones in which the client offers no pay, but some sort of recognition or experience, as if it's the artist who is on the receiving end of benefit.
This tactic obviously works, even I'm contacted by people requesting similar for similar or free service at least 1-2 times a month. Sometimes it's obvious that the messages are straight up copypasta, from a sender who's hoping to snatch up anyone who responds.
i srsly thought the author was being ironic when i first read it... woulda been awsome to know this stuff as young artiste :P
unfortunatley it seems like he was srs and that's a bummer, but there's alot of people out there who do this and then some.
incredibly easy to get ripped off and swindled when you're still new i think. Alot easier to negotiate and stand by your set price or business whatever when you've got some experience and have been through things imo.
Still, i hope the article's done some good for artists out there who think working for free directly for someone else's profit is a good deal (it's not )
edit: i guess this guy has the about the same disrespect
to a particular group of "artists" than i have
but it seems he thinks like every artist is like them
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJEqHFEY3FI[/ame]
After reading his article, and his subsequent explanation and I can see where he is coming from, even if I don't agree with his methods. When it comes down to it it is up to the artist to arms them selves against it.
Replies
What is the problem, I don't get it.
Its not so much about the money as it is treating artists with very little respect. Its like spitting on your plumber while he tries to fix your drain on his first job ever.
Ive been screwed over for little money not because i didnt know it was dodgy, i just needed money bad at the time so i jumped at the only option i had. I think i was pretty depressed for those 8 months. And yes this was an art job.
I have two jobs, and even though my second job is not industry related, I have management that acts that way, and let's put it this way, when the day comes that I quit (which shouldn't be too far from now, if all goes well!) I'm just walking out the door and never coming back. No one likes being taken advantage of when it's blatantly obvious. Like the saying goes, "They're pissing on my leg and don't even have the decency to call it rain."
The problem is the dickish and manipulative way this guy sees the hiring of artist as well as the huge misconceptions he has about value of the artist he looks for. He doesnt seem to see artist as people but more like a commodity to exploit. This one was the most galling.
I dont blame the guy for trying to find the best value for his money but his attitude is completely souless when it comes to how he views artists as well as disrespectful. How any of you can defend this sort of dickish behavior is beyond me.
Lets say this guy actually makes it and has a big studio and has this same type of greedy/souless attitude? would you want to work for him? The studios ive seen that do the best as the ones who appreciate their workers for the talents they have. By treating them like humans instead of cogs they feel like they have an equal stake in the company and will work better and stay with a company longer.
I see a lot of indie games companies looking for artists on the cheap, which you can kind of understand, but to actually come out and say it in the way he did was just stupid
And yet none of you seemed to have a problem with how Rockstar San Diego treated their employees, and even supported them by purchasing their product... which further justified them to continually mistreat their employees?
There's nothing in that article I think crossed the line.
He is potentially hurting his product by treating his people in a way that squashes creativity rather than encourages it and he doesn't even care.
Technically there is nothing illegal about whats he's doing, I don't really condemn his tactics if they work for him, ok good enough. I personally wouldn't operate that way, I think you can get a better product out of people if you let them take a little ownership of the thing they create. It's the difference between getting exactly what you commanded them to do, or getting a little extra at no additional cost.
He can build bridges and use them often, or he can burn it, cutting himself off to more substantial streams of creativity and cash.
There's a big difference between taking on a new artist and having to hold their hand through everything and just giving a job to someone and forgetting about it until its turned in.
He can be the petrie dish that grows new artists only to have them walk out on him, or he can grow strong relationships and have access to quality talent and never have to hope there is more barrel to scrape.
Do I think he's a numb nut for spilling his "secrets" and drawing the ire of the artists he seeks to exploit... yes, yes I do =P
I completely agree, and more importantly don't work for people or places that treat their employees like garbage. BUT if I remember correctly the layoffs came a few weeks after the chart busting release. Those that bought had little warning their purchase went to fund a dastardly business tactic. Although it pretty much happens with every game so people might as well boycott the whole industry or wait 3-6mo to see if they have massive layoffs before buying...
You get what you pay for! Hopefully artists everywhere put this guy on their radar and pad their prices all cozy like.
I agree, but I personally did not purchase RDR out of principle, and tried to persuade others I knew to do the same with little to no luck. Some people I knew purchased it because they thought it would help those workers get a big bonus at the end of the year, no one could have foreseen they were going to do the layoff, but as soon as they did I was relieved I didn't give them a dime of my money.
well, maybe his tips actually straight from this book lol
http://www.wikisummaries.org/Rich_Dad,_Poor_Dad
Worst case scenario is you get stiffed for a few days of work.
Mostly what I get from this thread is that a lot of artists out there think the people contracting inexperienced artists are all stand-up guys who just want to help you out. This guy is just saying what you should already know: your employer is going to try to get the most work they can out of you while paying you as little as possible.
In turn, it is your job as an artist to get paid as much as possible while spending as little time as you can.
Of course, I have had better relationships with companies I contracted for that developed over time, but at the end of the day you are doing a job and it's about the money. Anybody trying to convince you it is about anything else is probably trying to screw you over.
Also I'd dissagree about that last statement, I've known people to do unpaid overtime voluntarily just because they wanted things to be the best they could be, with no prompting from the employer.. now would they do that for this guy? hell no
if all you care about is doing a job for money, like mcdonalds, then yeah that logic is sound. But this guy 'keeping artists in the dark' is actually preventing people from doing the best work they can do, which sucks doesn't it? who likes working with limitations upon yourself which prevent you from doing your best work?
it leaves a bad taste in the mouth
(as does my grammar! ahem)
It's important for artists to know this and understand that people like this are out there - if anything I think it's good that this guy has this on his website rather than the opposite. These people exist, and it happens.
Ultimately, the responsibility for having an artist be treated as a professional falls on the artist. If you're capable of producing professional quality work, then maintaining an air of professionalism that will turn these guys off and help you hook up with people who will value you. Meanwhile, if you're low-ball bidding some starving artist contract work for $400 or whatever, you're shooting yourself in the foot.
It's ultimately the artist's responsibility to look out for themselves, and not the employer/contract worker. Only one side of that equation has someone who is going to be looking out for the artist's best interests.
I'm saying this as a guy who has been burned as a guy poached on deviantart for contract work, and has learned from that and subsequently gotten contract work on this level that worked out just fine.
Keep in mind this guy isn't going to be paying anyone here for their time, because we're largely professionals. This guy isn't personally shitting on anyone here.
But this viewpoint on the ethics of the situation will be held by whoever is paying your next contract, so be aware.
I see this less as a slam on people here and more as a cautionary tale. The guys with the offers are looking to rip you off, and its your responsibility to do the opposite. If both players play well, then a fair and equitable trade will be achieved.
Once you establish that you are going to get paid, and that the company likes your work, you are on the road to a solid working relationship, which can last for years and be very rewarding for both parties. I'm actually still pretty good friends with some of the guys I contracted with, even though I don't do it anymore.
[edit]
MegaMoogle: The key to a good relationship here is for the artist to work fast. Then he doesn't have to take a lot of time, and the contractor still gets a lot of art. In fact, all the successful contract artists I have known have been super fast workers. This can work especially well for the artist if you are getting paid per asset instead of per hour.
I have NEVER had a contract job with someone who was looking out for my own personal best interest.
The only difference is, the author of this article realises that there is less leighway and less resistance in negotiating with amateurs, and it's far cheaper.
We already know this happens. Why are you guys so upset?
As far as I am concerned he is getting what he pays for. An amateur artist of mediocre quality with little to no experience who has nothing to add to the project other than the work... and the quality is of little concern.
Only things that matter are the deadline, and the cost efficiency.
.. which sounds like most producers I've worked for in this industry.
I'm not saying you have to be cutthroat or ruthless, and there can certainly be a give and take, but to assume one blindly is to put your neck out without any gain.
Looking out for your artists, etc, helps you retain talent and maintain positive relationships that pay dividends in the future.
My whole point here though is that especially with contract work, and especially in small-potatoes business like this flash games guy, you can't assume that the guy offering the work is going to do you any favors. If they do, and you see they do, then work for them again, but accepting a low-ball offer or going into negotiations without any research (like this guy wants artists to do) ultimately places blame on the artist, in my opinion.
It is best for business when everyone is trustworthy and loyal and working together, but just because you trust everyone doesn't mean you shouldn't cut the cards.
While there's no denying the guy is an asshole I have to agree with JacqueChoi here, he isn't doing anything illegal and the only part that suffers directly from his practice is the quality of his own work. Maybe he'll mature later on and realize how big a role art plays in making or breaking a game, until then amateur artists are getting some experience and filling out their resum
He obviously is not very experienced, he never mentions work for hire agreements, nor escrow services.
The concept of what he is talking about is standard practice even with game companies to advertising companies.
Just let his article fade away giving it this much attention just draws more traffic to his site...let it die
It's incredibly offensive??? Yeah yeah it might be 'the real world', but some people reading this dropped tens of thousands on their game art education, only to read this cock-mongers ten steps to ripping off an artist.
I hope this knob-jockey's real name gets out and he's blacklisted for life. I don't really do the bandwagon thing but this guy MUST have been either ironic or dying to insult hundreds of people in one swoop.
EDIT: Oh he's just a pimply teenager? Fuck it, dunno why I got wound up :P Still hope his name gets out.
EDIT 2:
Christopher Gregorio
Never forget. Wouldnt want to work with him wouldya? :P
With the article, this guy dug his own grave
In my country, he would be a fucking crook, like those bastards that take advantage of the poor idiots without experience. This is the life.
If you are clever, you should know what it's worth your job, so don't work for these kind of people.
Dunno, he seems pretty reasonable. Just have to make sure to up your price so he pays you the actual value of your artwork.
While I do think he's a jerk, I'm not holding anything against him. The kid just educated thousands, and thousands of young artists and burnt more bridges than he could've imagined.
I'm not about to argue with that.
This tactic obviously works, even I'm contacted by people requesting similar for similar or free service at least 1-2 times a month. Sometimes it's obvious that the messages are straight up copypasta, from a sender who's hoping to snatch up anyone who responds.
unfortunatley it seems like he was srs and that's a bummer, but there's alot of people out there who do this and then some.
incredibly easy to get ripped off and swindled when you're still new i think. Alot easier to negotiate and stand by your set price or business whatever when you've got some experience and have been through things imo.
Still, i hope the article's done some good for artists out there who think working for free directly for someone else's profit is a good deal
edit: i guess this guy has the about the same disrespect
to a particular group of "artists" than i have
but it seems he thinks like every artist is like them
[ame]
I was also reminded of this article: Client Tip #1: Always have a contract
Edit:
Talking about this one http://kaitol.com/how-to-hire-an-artist/
http://www.polycount.com/2010/08/11/the-co-worker/
That sounds a lot like "if you work long hours you must be good at your job"