Slashdot Mirror


More Devs Going Indie, To Gamers' Benefit

Wired is running a feature about how a growing number of game developers are abandoning jobs at major publishers and studios and taking their experience to the indie scene instead. Quoting: "They’re veterans of the triple-A game biz with decades of experience behind them. They’ve worked for the biggest companies and had a hand in some of the industry’s biggest blockbusters. They could work on anything, but they’ve found creative fulfillment splitting off into a tiny crew and doing their own thing. They’re using everything they’ve learned working on big-budget epics and applying it to small, downloadable games. The good news for gamers is that, as the industry’s top talents depart the big studios and go into business for themselves, players are being treated to a new class of indie game. They’re smaller and carry cheaper price tags, but they’re produced by industry veterans instead of thrown together by B teams and interns. Most importantly, unlike big-budget games that need to appeal to the lowest common denominator to turn a profit, these indie gems reveal the undiluted creative vision of their makers."

33 of 137 comments (clear)

  1. Quite by DurendalMac · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Some indie games are the best I've ever played. The Penumbra series springs to mind. Bungie made their best stuff prior to being assimilated by Microsoft. However, indie doesn't always mean good. I remember hearing about "Darkness Within" and it was truly awful. Intriguing, rather Lovecraftian story, but godawful gameplay.

    1. Re:Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you read the article, the indie game "shank" they're talking about is released by EA. I wonder if they know that indie means something else than slightly "different" games?

    2. Re:Quite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      This is the problem when "indie" is treated as a genre instead of the method of financing the game it is.

    3. Re:Quite by sortius_nod · · Score: 2, Informative

      I wonder if you know the difference between publisher and developer?

      It's funny that this article comes shortly after the one about gaming budgets peaking. Maybe it's a sign of things to come.

  2. To make games I want to play by Zeussy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Is the reason I am going indie, It is my ultimate dream to make a living from games I love making. I know a few indie devs here in Melbourne, for some it is their day job, for others they still need a stable part time job to support themselves, and for most its not the money (although) that is nice. It is about the quality of life. Typed on phone so apologies for bad grammar.

    1. Re:To make games I want to play by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Informative

      Checked out your website, looks like a potentially fun game.

      If I'm allowed to make a recommendation though, pay a little more attention to the use of language, both in the game and on the website itself. Speaking for myself I find less than top-notch quality graphics / voice acting etc. perfectly acceptable in an indie game, but mangled english is an instant turnoff.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
  3. I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by lanner · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Pay for the work wasn't worth it.

    Pay in the gaming industry sucks. I left and immediately made about 15% more, the job was more stable, and less stressful. Went on to make much more later.

    The second issue that really got to me was the stupid endless "crunch time". It was ALWAYS crunch time. Project management sucked so it was just some fat-ass bigwigs always just moving up the powerpoint milestones, while adding requirements at the same time. I got tired of the 50-to-60-hour work weeks.

    More pay for less work. Only idiot noobs straight out of high-school could think much good of that industry. "I wanna make video games for a living!" says the dork who played video games for the last 15-years of his life (at 20).

    Sometimes I think about the fun, and I might join some startup again some day, but I'd never work for any of the big guys again.

  4. Read in the EA startup voice. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    EA GAMES - We fuckup everything.

    As a gamer i welcome indy games. So long as they DON'T make the same mistakes the big game companys seem to make over and over.

    I don't care who gets my money. So long as i get something i enjoy that does NOT piss me off at some point. EA... i'm looking at you here.

    1. Re:Read in the EA startup voice. by mustPushCart · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Welcome them with your money and word of mouth advertising. They need it; and considering their budget is really small even a small sales volume will keep them in the green.

  5. indie games need to be good by smash · · Score: 3, Insightful

    ... because they don't have the budget to spend on superfluous crap that is unrelated to the gameplay.

    --
    I run: Windows, OS X, Linux, FreeBSD. Just because you have a hammer, doesn't mean everything is a nail.
    1. Re:indie games need to be good by MacGyver2210 · · Score: 5, Funny

      As an independent game developer, I must say I love my superfluous crap. If I couldn't throw in a couple unnecessary particle effects or shader effects, I don't know what I'd do.

      --
      If the only way you can accept an assertion is by faith, then you are conceding that it can't be taken on its own merits
    2. Re:indie games need to be good by TheVelvetFlamebait · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What? Indie games need to be good, because otherwise they're mediocre, indistinguishable from the flood of other mediocre indie games. Mediocre indie games can't get attention like other mediocre games, since they don't have marketing as a back-door.

      --
      You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
  6. Id Software ... by Tamran · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ... at the beginning was like this. Very indie. This was when they made their best stuff IMHO.

    I hope to see a lot more good indie games. These $20million blowout games lately have been terrible (most anyway). Sometimes a simple game is more fun, such as:

    http://magic.pen.fizzlebot.com/

  7. We all know... by dintech · · Score: 2, Insightful

    There will always be a market for quality.

  8. awesome indy project by nephridium · · Score: 4, Informative

    This one's pretty interesting: http://www.wolfire.com/overgrowth

    It's a "rabbit ninja fighting game" ;), free from DRM and they are even developing for Linux (just as they did the predecessor). They are also designing it very modder friendly by using open formats, allowing anyone to to add content and making the engine accessible by scripting (python). Even now during the alpha stages they are already offering support to the modding community.

    Check out the hilarious dev/tutorial videos on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/WolfireGames

    If you donate you get access to their weekly alphas too! Yes, every week not only a progress report, but an actual updated usable product alpha to play around and mod with.

    --


    And when you gaze long enough into the code, the code will also gaze into you.
  9. Time to burn some karma by RogueyWon · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Ok, time to make myself unpopular around here.

    Personally, I don't welcome this news. I've given the indie gaming scene quite a few tries over the last few years, and tend to come away underwhelmed. Ok, there are a few titles I've liked. I guess Portal had indie-gaming somewhere in its DNA (even if the manner of its release, bundled with the Orange Box, was anything but indie). Limbo has an interesting style, though it's also a bit of a one-trick pony that wears thin about half-way through its (fairly short) play-time.

    Ultimately, I like big-budget triple-A extravaganzas. I like high production values, cutting edge graphics and plenty of attention to detail. This isn't to say that every much-hyped big-budget game is good; in the year that saw the release of Final Fantasy XIII (and another bloody Kane & Lynch installment), this is blatantly not true. But if I look at the games I've actually pumped most time into and enjoyed the most over the last couple of years, I come up with titles like World of Warcraft (though I'm happily off that particular crack now), Forza Motorsport 3, Ratchet & Clank: Crack in Time, Uncharted 2, Crysis and God of War 3. Not exactly a list of indie titles. And despite me having given them a go, even the high-end indie titles like World of Goo and the Maw have failed to grab my interest for more than an hour or so.

    I'm also generally skeptical that allowing creative types to express their "undiluted creative vision" is always a good thing. It's a gross over-simplification to say that big-budget titles need to appeal to the lowest common denominator. Ratchet & Clank: Crack in Time contains puzzles that are frankly on a par with anything I've seen in an indie game recently (the irony being that R&C's puzzles are all built around the old "push button to open door" mechanic, just infused with some fairly mind-warping twists). God of War 3 wasn't far behind. But when you get the "undiluted creative vision", what you're often (not always, I admit, but often) getting is a load of self-indulgent tripe from the creator that a competent editorial board would have cut not because they felt they needed to dumb the product down, but because it's not actually any fun to play. This isn't limited to games; for every director's cut in the movie industry that actually improves the original, there are half a dozen or so that just add unnecessary rubbish, ruining the pace of the film. Look also at what happens to books from authors who have become celebrities, once editors lose the confidence to challenge them; you get the kind of ever-expanding padding-filled tomes that characterise the later works of... say... Tom Clancy, J. K. Rowling and Stephen King.

    I'm not denying that management and publishers don't occasionally demand dumbing down, but it's pretty clear that seeing the creative type as a poor, exploited victim trying to defend his flawless original concept from the nasty corporate villains is a misleading approach.

  10. Fluttermind saved my sanity by Madrayken · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I started out in the industry at 15, back in '85. At that point, everything was indie. There were no big studios, and the few existing companies funded very little.

    Moving on 20+ years (cough), I quit Microsoft Game Studios in 2009. At the point where I left, there were teams of 100+ people, no one individual had much impact on the game, communication issues both up and down and across the team due to size alone made everything exceedingly slow and frustrating.

    I left.

    I started a new company - Fluttermind Ltd. - which has been going a year and a half now. It's still fun, and the distance has given me an interesting perspective. This is what I see.

    The mainstream indistry is filled with passionate, talented people. The average Joe thinks these games are worth $50+. From my long-time nerd perspective, that's amazing. I dreamed of this day as a kid and it's finally here.

    Don't demonise 'big' game companies just because they're big. That's not punk-rock. That's not anti-establishment. That's knee-jerk foolishness. Big company games are often awesome. I can't wait for Team Ico's next release - 'big' company funded or no. I am utterly enjoying Battlefield Bad Company 2. Amazing multiplayer - some of the best experiences I've had as a gamer.

    'Big' games demand a lot of assets, each of which is crafted by a professional - no 'get your mate to paint a splash screen because he's got an A-level in art' crap here. Professionals and their assets are expensive, so publishers don't like taking risks very often. But it does happen. Fable and Shadow of the Colossus are both very weird, off-beat games funded by massive conglomerates and both great games. There are not that many others, but it's the same for Hollywood. For those of you saying 'Yeah, big budget movies suck, too' - I ask you to imagine an 'indie' version of 'The Matrix'. Or 'Lord of the Rings'. They'd really suck.

    Don't demonise marketing. I've never had a single marketing bod tell me what to put in a game. Ever. Full stop. Secondly, the one thing more likely to cause you a trip to the funny-farm after slogging your heart out for 2-4 years is for your marketing to suck, or - worse - to not be there at all. It will kill your game. It will kill your company. It will kill your job. The end. Saying 'good games will win through' is like saying 'positive thinking cures cancer': I'm sure there are anecdotal cases, but as people here are usually keen to point out, causation and correlation are quite different.

    As for the complaint 'games include superfluous crap'. If you think EA wants to have a team keep running at a burn rate of half a million a month for an extra 3 months so some guy can make a hundred extra guns nobody cares about, you've clearly never spent a minute in a steering meeting.

    While some indie games are wonderful (Dwarf Fortress and Wierd Worlds are amazing) a vast majority of them are worth 10 minutes and little more. Note I didn't say 'crap', I just said 'small'. Like a Daffy Duck cartoon. I wouldn't hold 'Duck Amuck' against 'Schindler's List' and compare the two. It is foolish.

    I admire anyone's initiative and ability to craft a game themselves, on a tiny budget (yup, I'm doing precisely that), but to pretend that indie means 'better games', or 'better people' is both incorrect and insulting.

    1. Re:Fluttermind saved my sanity by Jedi+Alec · · Score: 2, Funny

      For those of you saying 'Yeah, big budget movies suck, too' - I ask you to imagine an 'indie' version of 'The Matrix'.

      I don't have to imagine anything, I just have to think back to playing The path of Neo...but if I were to do that my gaming budget for the remainder of this year would have to be spent on counselling instead.

      --

      People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
    2. Re:Fluttermind saved my sanity by Sprouticus · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Games today are like was music in the 90's, on the cusp of change.

      They are going to go to a more specialized model in the future. Sure there will still be big games (and big music groups), but when tools evolve to a point where decent (not great but decent) effects and gameplayare available to everyone, indie devs will cater to niche crowds. Games which offer specialized game mechanics and gameplay will allow you to reach a small audience cheaply and eventually when the tools improve even more you will be able to do as well with a small indie dev group as you might with a large big company sponsored team.

    3. Re:Fluttermind saved my sanity by Junior+J.+Junior+III · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I like Indy games because I perceive that they find it easier to take more risks with design and concept. Rather than release "Sports Again 2011" and "3D FPS WarSim: The Reiteration", they can release games that offer some novelty.

      Not all their ideas work, not all of their ideas are well executed. But there's a zillion of them, so there's bound to be a lot of bad releases.

      But also, guess what: there's a lot of bad releases among big studios, too:

      • Half-baked games released to target a price point and a deadline, rather than be good games
      • giant sprawling titles that I'll never have time for
      • boring rehashes of the same old thing
      • Incremental genre iteration with more polygons and sprites for more realistic models that don't directly correlate to more fun
      • sequels with bells and whistles tacked on to what was once fresh and exciting gameplay, and the bells and whistles don't enhance or add to the experience.

      Truly great games are rare from both major studios and indy developers.

      But the odds that an indy developer is going to release a small, fun game that offers something new and doesn't cost $50+ seems higher than the odds that a large studio would. I enjoy games from both sources. But I honestly get more excitement from seeing what indy developers come up with.

      --
      You see? You see? Your stupid minds! Stupid! Stupid!
    4. Re:Fluttermind saved my sanity by IICV · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Fable and Shadow of the Colossus are both very weird, off-beat games funded by massive conglomerates and both great games.

      You're... you're comparing Fable to Shadow of the Colossus? And you call yourself an indie game dev?

      Seriously, what the fuck? Fable was an absolutely bog-standard RPG with real-time combat (if you could call it combat). There was nothing innovative in it - if you'd made the main character an elf it would have passed for an extra-bland off-label Legend of Zelda game. There was nothing weird, off-beat, innovative or otherwise interesting in the thing; the whole game was a very short exercise in playing it safe. Heck, when I'd finally found a good place to level up (after about 12 hours) I realized that I was 90% of the way through the game! That's not a full game, that's an extended demo.

      Shadow of the Colossus, on the other hand, had all of those attributes you ascribe to it - but describing it in the same breath as Fable? I have to question your judgment there.

  11. Re:I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by Rogerborg · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ditto to all of the above.

    The industry relies on grinding up graduates who don't know any better, paying them chicken feed until they've proved themselves by getting their name on a published title (or everyone above them has quit). You're always working to someone else's vision, to someone else's requirements, and to someone else's standards of quality - which may be higher or lower than your own.

    My epiphany came when driving home after "only" putting in 7 hours one Saturday, I felt like I'd had a day off, and I suddenly thought: "Wait... what if I didn't have to work at all at the weekend?"

    Don't get me wrong, it's a great first job, if only to teach you how not to develop software.

    --
    If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
  12. Re:I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by Xest · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is what inevitably drove me away from entering the games industry and towards plain old business software development in the end, despite being a game developer having been my lifelong dream up until the point I entered work.

    There's just little point being in the games industry working those hours for that wage, on someone elses vision and project when I can work 8:30 - 4:30pm (or 4pm on Fridays) without having had to work a single minute of overtime and have every weekend free and 30 days leave on top of bank holidays, and when I can work at home when I need to and so on on business software which may not be games, but which I'm at least running the projects for and can hence choose the technology and direction and get paid more to boot. The best part? I still have time to both study and work on my own games in my spare time too.

    I'm hoping that this indie resurgence will breathe life back into the games industry, I hope it means every other title isn't an FPS World War II shooter or whatever and the ones in between aren't mediocre tat. I hope it means we can see a return of the innovative and most importantly, fun games we saw in the early to mid 90s such as the Syndicate series, Cannon fodder series, the original Command and Conquer and Red Alert, Day of the Tentacle, Little Big Adventure etc.

    Indies take risks, game studios repeat the same old "risk-free" games seemingly oblivious to the fact that by making the same game over and over, people become less and less interested in the same tired clones, such that they're effectively making "risk-free" genres risky by boring the shit out of people with them. This is why there's so many AAA flops, and why the studios turned round and think "But what did we do wrong? This is just like Call of Duty 78: Return to D-Day (for the 78th time)". They seem oblivious to the fact that it flopped precisely because it is just yet another clone, and often with the fun of the original not implemented.

  13. give me inspiration over slick production by wall0159 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think your sentiments are common, and also apply to other arts like music. Lots of people seem to like immaculate but (IMO) dull music. Personally, I'm happy with a few rough edges, if the ideas are good, because it reminds me that art is made by people. I'm sure this is influenced by the fact that I'm an indie musician myself! :-P

    1. Re:give me inspiration over slick production by Madrayken · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I knew someone would mention music as a possible model. It does seem attractive at first glance.

      However, while it is possible to create a piece of music using software worth $100 that is absolutely indistinguishable from something created using millions of dollars of studio time to 99% of people, the same is not true of game development. Indeed, a piece of music that sounds a 'bit rougher' or 'more live' may have an enhanced atmosphere, as it draws the audience closer to the shamanic act of performance. This isn't a factor when making games. Nobody wants it a 'bit buggy' or with 'slightly inconsistent textures'. And nobody wants to get closer to us. We smell due to not being allowed home for 3 weeks during crunch.

      A four man team (one artist/animator, two coders and a level designer) can not create something indistinguishable from a $50m budget game. They might be able to do some tricks and adjust the visuals to work within their limitations, but they simply won't compete with Battlefield Bad Company, for example.

      'Art' as a whole seems largely free of the budget/perceived quality link.
      If we were talking about the automotive industry, for example, we'd never suggest that budget cuts were going to result in better cars.

    2. Re:give me inspiration over slick production by dkf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I think your sentiments are common, and also apply to other arts like music. Lots of people seem to like immaculate but (IMO) dull music. Personally, I'm happy with a few rough edges, if the ideas are good, because it reminds me that art is made by people. I'm sure this is influenced by the fact that I'm an indie musician myself! :-P

      Call me picky if you want, but I'd like to see stuff that is both inspired and slick. The best of the big-budget stuff is really excellent. The stuff that isn't good... well, it's just not good no matter how much was spent on it. Let's call crap out for being crap, and laud stuff that's good, and not get too hung up on whether being small or large is best (it seems to be an unrelated axis).

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
  14. Programmers by ledow · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Programmers are funny animals. Some of them work best in complete isolation. One person can pull off things that entire teams never dreamed of. A kid in their back bedroom, and a rainy summer, can generate a game quicker by any design-by-committee. Programmers don't naturally work in teams, they have to be taught - every serious CS course has a team-building component to it.

    Lots of big names started off as tiny indies... Codemasters is the most famous example, most probably, and Valve has bought up indie teams before now. It's not surprising at all, the only surprise is that indie went "out of fashion" with some people for a decade or so.

    The skill of programming a game is not about knowing Knuth off by heart, or finding mathematical shortcuts using integer arithmetic, it's about actually having a little vision and wanting to see it move around and make funny sounds. Once you know what you want to do, the rest is just slog-work to get it to work how you imagined. Large teams do sometimes miss the fact that, underneath everything else, there should be a game. Most of the "classic" games of the early 80's were written by teenagers in back bedrooms. Magazine cover tapes were full of indie material. Even large collect-a-weekly-parts programming magazines were written by what we would legally class as children (I know, I've spoken to someone on here that wrote a huge game for INPUT by Marshall Cavendish when they were a kid).

    Indie development was around at the start of the Internet - almost the whole shareware scene was indie. It kinda lost sight of itself when huge powerful consoles became mainstream, moving into the "homebrew" and various other sidelines which, because of their dubious legal status, were never as popular in mass-media. Now indie has found its roots again. A teenager can knock up a game in a week and be selling it by the thousands from Steam, or direct from their own website. They don't have to worry about system architectures or OS or having enough processor power. They can be pretty sure that it can be ported to myriad systems and not have to worry about development kits for consoles.

    I also think that indie and retro are often closely linked, because of this connection with old-time indie development. Retro remakes are popular, retro gaming magazines are everywhere - I was in London Stansted last week and there were FIVE different retro gaming magazines on the shelf - I couldn't believe it! People are happy to just play silly games that are no more complex than some Spectrum games of old - Facebook jollies, or five-minute play-throughs or even Flash/Java demos on the author's website (Altitude is very cool!). People are carrying devices that can run small games with ease and even buy them immediately and securely from their phones.

    In fact, I've started programming on a game that I've been wanting to do for years because of all the indie development I see. I see how simple or retro games are coming back into fashion and it makes me want to code. Chances are that my code will never leave my PC but it's immense fun to be doing for myself - it's replaced quite a lot of other hobbies just lately - and very heart-warming to see my little sprites bop around the screen. Even my girlfriend likes the fact that there is a little game that she can modify and influence and has often said she wants to sit there and make dozens of sprites for it. She often asks what I've got "your little people" to do today. The beauty is that if other people think the finished article is good enough then setting up a store, Paypal link or even Steam distribution takes no time at all. And because I programmed it for the fun of it, it's ALL profit - I would have programmed if a time-traveller told me that I'd never, ever sell a single copy.

    If you're working in the industry, and the scare-stories are anywhere near true, I'm not surprised that people are leaving their megalithic corporations that are trying to source funding for $60m games and instead want to see if they ca

    1. Re:Programmers by ledow · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Of course I'm exaggerating the team situation to an extreme, but it has a truth to it. Programming is an inherently single-person process - team programming methodologies basically boil down to "you do this bit, I'll do that bit, we'll meet in the middle to these specs". It's usually design-by-committee, implement-by-parts, with individual inspirations made public. Yes, there's feedback and direction and lots of other interactions but in-between, the programmers are basically walking to their own personal computer, thinking to themselves, working on their own in their own heads and then sharing with others later.

      And CS students, even the social ones, have to be taught how to work effectively as a team because, like mathematics, it's such a single-person process that collaboration is all about getting everyone on the same page by their own methods. Programming in teams does not scale linearly (far from it), does not scale at all in some cases, and isn't portable between humans. Even setting a code-style can be an administrative nightmare - many programmers have breakaway systems where they do the actual grunt work in their own way and then have some sort of conversion back and forth to the team methodology (whether that be source-control methods, coding style, etc.). Sometimes getting programmers to agree on a common development environment can be tricky, even (but fortunately that usually HELPS the code quality rather than hinder it).

      If you leave 100 people in a room and tell them that they have to move a 50-ton rock to the other side, they will work naturally together as a team (on average, at least - one will sulk and do nothing because they weren't listened to, another will take exception with the unelected "leader", another will be actively working against the majority with their "more efficient" method, one will be complaining because they're doing all the grunt-work while the others are discussing the problem etc.). Leave 100 programming students in a room and tell them to achieve a similarly difficult intellectual objective using their coding skills and you will have absolute chaos on your hands. And, more than likely, one guy out of the 100 will figure out a super-efficient method at the start, work on their own and then just apply their code to get the job done before anyone can even think about analysing the problem team-wide.

      It's a generalisation, but I've seen no end of CS students who would actually do a million times better job if you removed the team around them and asked them to do it themselves on their own. And even if you cherry-pick the most active, most integral and most amenable members and group them together on their own, they aren't any better than the best individual. The *quantity* of work achieved increases, of course, but the quality and the rate of achievement doesn't.

  15. Re:I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by Marcika · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Airline pilot? You start @ $15,000/yr to average $30,000/yr. There was a plane crash where everyone had died. it happened somewhat recently of your typical airline and someone found out that the pilot and 1st officer were the poorest people on the plane. People on welfare made more then they had.

    [citation needed]. Long-haul commercial pilot are some of the best-paid jobs around in the transportation sector (around 80k-120k pounds on average at Virgin and BA, that's $150k+), especially given the additional perks and the massive amount of days off. Even short haul pilots at cheapo airlines earn 50k pounds in the UK.

  16. Re:Bloated companies. by delinear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I think that was his point - that we'd see fewer, less serious screw ups in the financial sector if they didn't know that they have carte blanche to fail spectacularly and rely on public money bailing them out because we need them too much for them to go under.

  17. Re:I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by Kitten+Killer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    (I'd rather reply to this than spend my mod points.)

    Yes, long-haul commercial pilots are well paid. The problem is getting one of those jobs. There's a huge over supply of pilots. I'm a pilot myself and I'm very glad I never tried to make a living out of it.

    Once you are in the company, your position is based not on skill or ability or how hard you work. It's based entirely on how senior you are. That in turn decides how much you get paid. Typically you start off in the right seat of turbo-prop commuters getting paid almost nothing. In fact, "self-sponsored" positions aren't unheard of. If you manage to stay with one company long enough that you're no longer part of the "last in, first out" cuts, then your job is safe but your salary still isn't that great. It's only when you start edging towards retirement that the pay starts to reflect the amount of training and seat-time you've put in while earning peanuts. If your company goes bankrupt or you switch companies, you may find yourself at the bottom again.

  18. Re:Experience requirement by byronblue · · Score: 2, Insightful

    why would you want to use Wine for make a game based on Microsoft tech and products? Why not just get a damn windows license then and dev on that. If you ever complete the game who plays it will likely be running windows anyway. Would you really want to release a game you haven't tested on the target platform? Just use SDL / OpenGL / C++ or something other than XNA if you're gung-ho on not using Windows.

  19. Re:I don't blame them. I ditched the industry too. by Spatial · · Score: 3, Informative

    I got tired of the 50-to-60-hour work weeks.

    The worst part is, it actually hurts productivity after a while. It only makes sense to do it for the very last couple of weeks of a project.