Slashdot Mirror
QA as a Bridge to a Game Career?
An anonymous reader writes "Over at educational site Game Career Guide, there's a new article asking whether game testing is a good way to get into the game industry. Veteran game tester Zachary Slater comments of the conundrum: 'QA could be a worthwhile career path for console and computer games if only it were treated and respected as such ... It isn't and probably won't be. Game developers and publishers seem to regard QA as an unfortunate expense required in the development process. It is a problem for anyone who wants to actually focus on it that they won't be respected for doing so.'"
I believe testing is the right place to start, but that you should start as an intern while in college. After that experience, you'll not only understand the testing process but you'll also gain motivation to finish your degree.
There is a myth that you have to "break into" the game industry. The truth is if you have a clue what you are doing they will find you. Put a tech demo or game demo togother, put it on a website, and put the URL on your resume. If you don't have a demo, you probably aren't fit for the industry since most successful people there enjoy writing games/demos. Just because you like playing games doesn't mean you like making games. Also, keep in mind they nobody is going to hire you to make YOUR game, they are hiring you to make THEIR game, so your creative ideas are meaningless to potential employers.
word.
You'll find that the industry places varying degrees of importance on QA. Some places give it minimal importance, hiring contractors and disposable employees to do just enough QA to get by. Those places will have horrible hours, low pay, and be miserable experiences, taking advantage of the fact that a lot of people want to do gaming. Other places will give it proper importance, making it a clear part of the lifecycle. They'll pay decently, actually listen to input, and give the requisite resources and time to make sure that quality is taken care of.
The key is to get in at one of the latter places, though to be fair, it'll also be harder to get in there because more people will be interested, and they'll have tougher requirements when doing the hiring. They're also the places that you'll do things worth putting on a resume and can lead you to becoming even more involved in the industry, should to want to leave QA.
And never forget about positions on the edge of the industry, as those can be some of the best ways in, since there's not the same demand as getting in to an actual game developer, but you'll still make the contacts and learn relevant things. I gave up on getting into the gaming industry years ago. But 5 years ago, I decided to move to Seattle, and got a position at Microsoft (yeah, I know what people here think, but I haven't regretted it for a moment) - and realized I had an opportunity to get into gaming here, and now I've got a position on the Xbox team (UI test). I've been learning a lot, making contacts, and I've found that quite a few people have gone on from this team to take up positions at game developers.
"You know your god is man-made when he hates all the same people you do."
I've known some people who have "broken in" to development after spending a lot of (grueling, low-pay, poor security) time in QA. Which is to say... it is possible to get into dev through QA.
That said, I've known many a game developer, and the general consensus is that, while it is possible, the possibility is also remote enough that it's a pretty crappy idea. A lot of game development, from the code side anyway (I'm assuming since this is Slashdot that this is the case), require extensive understanding of computer science fundamentals, so unless you are some genius self-trained uber-coder, it's probably best if you go to school and learn the nuts and bolts necessary in this industry.
Testers are the people who annoy everybody by coming back with a build and saying "it doesn't meet xbox certification criteria 347-15a", thereby causing the developers to have to work another 12 hour day to fix it.
Then you should have implemented the cert correctly in the first place.
Don't blame QA for developer incompetence.
In the above statement, your "best" certainly doesn't mean "easiest." Breaking in as an artist, designer, or programmer is substantially harder than breaking in on other tracks. These positions have huge pools of outside applicants, and there is a sufficient amount of domain-specific knowledge required that companies almost always hire people who are already inside the industry. This is not to say that it's impossible to break into one of these positions, but it creates an extra hurdle, in addition to the already high one you're facing just to break in.
The real best way to get into the industry is through an internship, but obviously, that isn't available to just anyone.
QA is certainly not an ideal way to get in, but it's better than banging your head against a wall you can't get over. Here is my advice for those who take this path:
1.) Do your QA job well. It may not be the one you wanted, but if you don't do it well, the only place you're going is the unemployment office. The company's perception of your competence will be important if you want to get into another department.
2.) Network, network, network. Get to know the people in the department you want to be in. Make friends. You might even find a mentor.
3.) Work on your skills in your chosen field in your free time. If you want to be an artist, beef up your portfolio. If you want to be a programmer, work on a demo. If you're a designer, work on some design docs, make a board game, or find a wannabe programmer to team up with for a demo.
The important thing to remember is: There's no game dev fairy who is going to flutter down and wave her magic wand and get you out of QA. Sitting on your butt and doing the minimal work isn't going to cut it. You've got to put in the effort, or you're just wasting your time.
If the industry needs more candidates, then simple economics says that the answer is to pay more. The gaming industry is notorious for low pay at starting positions. If you don't get in right after college, you'll have to take a huge pay cut to break into the industry. That pretty much keeps anyone with experience out of the industry. The arrogance of "you haven't put in your time" means that almost everyone has to come up from the bottom. Additionally, it stifles innovation because you have to be in the industry for so many years before you get a chance to contribute. I do not make these things up, they come from my own experience of trying to get hired into the industry about five years ago. After six months, I finally got an offer, only to realize there was no way I could afford to live with that salary.
Pay more. Open up experienced jobs to people without direct gaming experience. Provide training to new hires. Your candidate pool is small only because you place such severe restrictions on people who can be in it.
More bugs is not a good measure of QA ability. What you're looking for is *better* bugs. One tester may find 20 trivial typos, while another may find a bug that will cause the game to crash. The last bugs is a far better one to find, although typos do affect the user experience. I would also disagree with your suggestion that programmers (necessarily) make better testers. While the knowledge can't hurt, Dev has a totally different mindset than QA does. Dev tends to test to make sure things work. A good QA engineer tests to try and break stuff in interesting ways. The best combination (in my professional opinion) is a good group of Devs and QA that regularly work together, and are able to communicate effectively.
'Loose' is when your pants are three sizes too big. 'Lose' is when you misuse 'loose'.
The real trick here is to find a small company or a group of developers. The #1 mistake most people make starting out is they think like 50 year olds and go for a big company with way too many people. This results in less risk and a nicer resume', but it also leads to just being another cog in the works and a total lack of real opportunities.
The simple fact is that quality control and customer support gets worse as the company is bigger. That is, unless you go in as one of the original 10-20 employees at the very beginning.
As for how to make it in software, it's not impossible to make a good game by yourself or with a couple of people.
Kingdom of Loathing and many other online games are perfect examples of this. And honestly, if I was running a company, I'd be hiring these people who made their own smaller games first.
As for commercial games, Defcon is a perfect example of what a small group can do on a shoestring budget. I can guarantee that every one of the people involved in it already has multiple offers for real work if they want it.
It all gets back to the basic rule of science, and by extension, computing: There is no free lunch. You want to make games, you have to MAKE games and do the coding. QC/QA is most often a dead-end career path unless they pay for your masters degree or something similar while doing it.
QA is in no way a path into "real" work in the games industry. If you want to be a games programmer, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of programming. If you want to do graphics, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of graphics. If you want to do sound and music, you're going to need to impress with your portfolio of sound and music. The only advantage your QA job gives you is that you don't need an envelope and a stamp to send in your job application if you're already working in the same building. To be totally honest, the studios I've worked, QA were regarded with such withering contempt that working there would probably be a handicap. You'd get a better response if you were some random guy off the street.