Feature: Why Being a Computer Game Developer Sucks

Talin has written one of the more interesting pieces that I've seen in a while, piercing the bubble of idyllic life that many people, and giving insight into what is, for all intents and purposes an industry. His synopsis: "I've been in the computer games industry since about 1983...I've come to the conclusion that the industry has gradually, imperceptibly, transformed from a cozy industry full of creative freedom and fun into a rather unpleasant place to work." Click below for more.

My name is Talin, and I've been in the computer games industry since about 1983. I've had a lot of fun, as well as a few "hits". I'm best known for the 1986 Amiga game "The Faery Tale Adventure", for which I still get occasional fan mail. I've worked on about a dozen projects all told, the most recent being a massively multiplayer game for SegaSoft's HEAT network.

I'm always amused be people's reactions when I tell them that I work in the computer games industry. "Computer games!" they say, "Gee, that must be fun!" At such times I usually pause, thinking "How do I break it to them?"

I've been in the industry a long time (since around 1983), and I've watched carefully the changing nature of the business. I remember the busts and booms, the changing platforms, the rise and fall of many companies. And I've come to the conclusion that the industry has gradually, imperceptibly, transformed from a cozy industry full of creative freedom and fun into a rather unpleasant place to work.

Computer game developers work in an industry where 90% of the profit is made from 10% of the products. Or to put it another way, 90% of the products simply die in the marketplace. Sometimes this is because the products themselves are dreck; There certainly is a lot of poorly designed, poorly debugged, formulaic, or simply content free products out there. In other cases, good products wither on the vine because they are inadequately marketed, or because they can't get through all of the noise and fluff that's clogging up the distribution chain.

When the games industry started, distributors were begging for product, but now you have to bribe Fry's or CompUSA a couple of hundred thousand to get your product placed somewhere where customers will actually see it.

And this doesn't even include the large number of products that never make it to market. In some cases, a publisher or development company runs out of money before it can finish a game, or is eaten by a larger company which immediately develops a case of indigestion and dies. (This has happened to my own projects twice.)

Having been involved in a number of large, multi-million dollar projects that never got released, or were pathetically marketed, I sometimes wonder whether the computer games industry isn't perhaps a net loss to the Gross National Product. I'm not even talking about the amount of lost productivity from people playing games (which I don't consider "lost"). Rather, what I mean is that it sometimes seems like more investment money is actually wasted developing and marketing failed games than is made in profits from successful ones.

Most of my industry colleagues that I've talked to about this have expressed similar feelings. One person said that the games industry is "a transfer of funds from the rich to the lucky". In my opinion, one would be foolish to invest in a game company.

Perhaps it's different in the big game publishers, where they crank out the same formulaic sports action game or first-person shooter over and over again. But in the smaller companies where I've spent my career, the vast majority of projects either never make it to market, or completely tank once they get there.

The economic realities of developing games induces what I call "The Lottery Mentality". Lotteries are based on the idea that we tend not to be able to think very rationally about small differences in probability. The California State Lottery has been called, for example, "a tax on people who can't do math". In the games industry, this takes the form of lying to ourselves about the potential chances of creating a "hit" game. We all know that our game has only a small chance of becoming a "hit" and thereby making a profit, yet we fool ourselves into thinking: "Yes, but MY game is going to be the ONE". As one producer put it: "You don't think anyone _intentionally_ tries to make a mediocre game?" (Well, there are some in fact who do, but that's beside the point.) But the fact is that your game is almost certainly going to be mediocre, in sales if not in quality, whether you like it or not.

The lottery mentality is what keeps investors pumping large amounts of money into the sinkhole of games development. After all, it's a very exciting, fast-paced, high-tech and "cool" sinkhole. It's "the wave of the future". I've watched how games get funded, and it's usually less a matter of the technical feasibility and artistic merits of the game, than it is the personal charm of the CEO of the development company. To paraphrase Alexis de Tocqueville: "What a fragile thing is human reason."

I should point out that my argument only applies to games written for computers, not game consoles. The economics of the console market are very different, primarily because the console manufacturers maintain a strict editorial control over what games can be published. As a result, the distribution chain for console-based software is far more consistent in quality. On the other hand, there's far less opportunity for innovation in the console market, and this is only partly explained by the strong 'parental' influence of the console manufacturers. Because consoles don't have keyboards, console games are extremely limited in the kinds of social interaction that they can support, which means that console-based games tend to be focused around kicking, jumping, hitting, running, and other brute force physical activities. This in turn limits the console market to a fairly narrow demographic, one that isn't interested in complex social interaction. Similarly, because consoles don't have hard drives, they are limited to games which are mostly "stateless", meaning that the player can only affect a small number of selected variables in the game environment.

Failed products and harsh economics aren't the only reason why the games industry has become a miserable place.

Part of the reason why I fled from Hollywood in the early 80's was because I realized that Hollywood, with it's creativity-stifling unions, bureaucratized studios, and disreputable agents, was not the way to a happy life. Not everyone gets to be a Spielberg or a Lucas, and in fact the vast majority of workers toil away at one narrowly-defined job with no creative freedom whatsoever. The few truly inspired creators, the ones with the really unique ideas, are targets for exploitation and fraud. When I realized, a few years ago, that the whole "Siliwood" thing was a bust, and that Hollywood was not going to take over, I breathed a sigh of relief.

Now I find the games industry is becoming more and more like Hollywood itself, where each person has his or her little job compartment or specialty, and must never stray outside of it for fear of stepping on someone's territory. "I don't understand," says the manager, "I thought you said you wanted a position as a programmer. Now you're telling me you want a position as an artist?" Even when they know and accept you as a multi-talented, multi-skilled person, they still have trouble figuring out ways to apply your skills in anything but a single narrowly-defined capacity.

I should also mention that the games industry has little respect for experience. What the games industry runs on is youthful energy. It loves to exploit 19 year old programmers who work 10-12 hours a day, get paid less than the standard wage for programmers in other industries, and don't know squat about software engineering principles. There are very few 40-year-old game programmers; I'm one of few who hasn't been "burnt out" by the murderous pace. But more and more I feel like I don't "fit in". I find myself less and less interested in doing the same games over and over again, targeted at an audience of 14-year old males who have been programmed by evolution to enjoy the thrill of combat and the hunt. Quake and Unreal are _great_ games from a design and technical standpoint, but frankly they bore me. (In case you are wondering, my two favorite games are Might and Magic II, and Civilization II).

Despite the fact that the games industry has aged tremendously in both it's bureaucratic structure and the sophistication of the technology, the software engineering practices it uses are still juvenile. It amazes me to find managers who have copies of classic works like Rapid Development_, _Writing Solid Code_, and _Peopleware_ on their bookshelves, yet somehow fail to actually apply the principles in those books. The culture of the industry is simply too strong, and trying to take the time to do things right (so that it saves time later) is like slogging through mud. The whole process by which games are budgeted and scheduled, for example, is something that I find amazing that anyone could take seriously.

Anybody who's studied software engineering knows that a schedule which underestimates the time needed to develop a project actually makes the project take _longer_. Countless case studies have shown this to be true. Yet we insist on shipping projects "by Christmas season" so that programmers are forced to waste their time, trying to "hurry up" to meet an arbitrary deadline. We continue to throw budgets and schedules together quickly, so that we can have them ready for a meeting with the publisher, without ever consulting the people who will actually work on the project (most of whom haven't been hired yet.)

The result is completely predictable: programmers that are under extreme stress who in turn create code full of bugs and defects. Project that end up a year later than they were scheduled. Isn't it interesting that some of the most successful game companies have adopted a "it will be done when it's done" policy?

Part of the problem is that our industry labors under the illusion that it is "like Hollywood". Film producers are usually able to turn out a film on time and within budgetary limits. But there's a difference -- film producers don't have to re-invent the camera each time they do a production. There are no "stable" technologies in the computer games industry, and the average useful life of a game "engine" is about two years.

The games industry is primarily an engineering industry, which means that what we do is solve problems. But solving problems, especially highly complex ones, knows no timetable. No one can predict how long it will take to invent a particular thing, because every invention is an accident, albeit a fortuitous one. The best you can do is increase the probability of such an accident occuring, a process which I have dubbed "accident husbandry."

Despite the fact that constant invention is critical to the industry, game companies still refuse, as far as I can tell, to fund any kind of research. Instead, each new game is itself a "research prototype", full of risks and unknowns. You might as well write "and here a miracle occurs" right on the PERT chart and be done with it.

Job stability is another thing that is lacking in the computer games field. It seems to be a common practice in small development companies to lay off the entire development team upon completion of a project. Usually this is because a small development company can only afford to pay salaries while a project is actually being funded by an outside source. It takes a long time to negotiate such a contract, and often the previous product finishes before the negotiations are complete. As a result, the development company has no choice but to unburden itself of workers who aren't producing any revenue. As a result of this high turnover rate, development companies are unable to maintain a solid body of institutional knowledge. Worse, it inclucates a sense of futility in the engineering staff. As one worker put it: "If you ship, you'll be fired." Don't get me wrong. I still like games. But the games industry isn't games.

I'm not advocating that the sources of funding should simply dry up. But I wish that investors and project planners would be more careful. Firstly, because I'm ethically offended by the idea of wasting other people's money. And secondly, because I'm sick of spending a year of my life working on a beautiful project, only to watch it go down in flames (And yes, I admit that there were times when the fault was my own...but not most of the time.)

I think that we'd all be happier if fewer games were actually produced. In my opinion, the primary result of this would be a higher percentage of good games on the market. Of course, there wouldn't be quite as many jobs, but I can tell you that there are a lot of fun, exciting jobs out there that have nothing to do with the games industry. For example, I recently I took a job at an e-commerce company. Now, I have absolutely no interest in e-commerce per se. But I found to my surprise that there are a lot of things about this job that are really fun:

• I get to do real research, to tinker around with new concepts
• I'm living on "internet time": Product cycles are in weeks, not years
• My experience and knowledge are highly respected.
• People look to me for help and answers, not to grind away code in silence
• Schedules are reasonable and flexible
• I'm learning a lot of new technologies
• I'm getting a chance to do something different for a change.
• The gender balance is a lot closer to 50%
• They appreciate and exploit my multiple skills and game-designer sensibilities.
• I get to think about social issues as well as technical ones
• The people are excited and enthusiastic rather than feeling burnt out.
• The pay is better

Of course, I still have a lot of game ideas I want to do...I'm not going to follow the example of Chris Crawford, and say "Farewell forever, games industry!" This isn't the first time I've taken a break away from games to do other work (for example, in 1987 I wrote a professional music sequencer, Music-X.)

But these days I'm far less interested in broadcasting my own ideas and stories (the "Death From Above" content distribution model), than I am in empowering the end-users to be able to realize their own ideas and fantasies. If I chose to do another game, it would have to be on very specific terms: An R&D project up front to eliminate the major risks, solid commitment to sound engineering principles, a rational schedule (or better yet, no schedule at all), and a project premise that involved a high level of social consciousness. "Community is King" is my motto now.

Alternatively, I think I'd enjoy just develop games as a hobby, completely open-sourced, and make money some other way. I've found that being an amateur game creator is more emotionally rewarding than being a After all, I'm in this for the fun, and for the chance to express myself creatively. If I wasn't, I'd be selling insurance or something.

Talin (Talin@ACM.org)
www.sylvantech.com/~talin
www.hackertourist.com/talin

Comments

Reactions

[Chris Johnson]

This article is powerful stuff. It's interesting to consider the implications.
Firstly. I'm incredibly reminded of the music industry. This is not a compliment. The music industry is incredibly exploitative- ask a Steve Albini, ask an insider, ask an indie player of some sort. It's really quite sick and horrible.
In this light, the kids yelling 'Whiner!' are worthy of contempt- they've bought into the fantasy, but I think none of them are actually living the reality. I'm not living that reality either, but I retain a fascination with the stories of those who are :) at any rate, simply _insisting_ that the world is filled with opportunity does not make it be true. In some places there is opportunity. In others there is not. And many of these exploited game programmers will develop physical ailments such as ulcers which are life threatening and _not_ things that one automatically gets by being poor.
My own choice? I'm setting out to write free software (i.e. GPL), and expect not to be able to make any money with it- so I have to be devious. I and some fellow techies have founded a web hosting service for nonprofits, we are _becoming_ a nonprofit, and we are setting out to offer ISP services. If we can do that and lose money doing great things, we can compete for grants effectively- and our job descriptions specifically cite 'writing software for nonprofits and people in general' without getting very specific as to _what_ software this would be...
If we can have an ISP, then we will be able to release games that use a game server, and that's the plan. I'm thinking in terms of rather low bandwidth- for instance, I've mocked up an interface for an oil supertanker game- simple raycasting view from the helm, but the _depth_ of the game would be much more intense, and one vital part of it is that you'd be setting out on tanker journeys in real time, and your tanker would be steaming away unattended while you slept or tuned out- you'd go on line and fire up the client to control the ship, but it continues to exist without you (possibly running into other tankers if you ignore it). Kind of like tamagotchis only several billion times heavier and filled with oil ;)
There's a whole level of detail in just the oil pipe routing and tank filling alone- this would be pretty nearly a hardcore sim.
There's also a space-based concept I'm putting a lot of work into, that's on a scale way beyond anything anyone's currently doing or contemplating, because it's based on emergent detail rather than the designer playing god and specifying everything accurately.
The common factor here is this: I gotta make these work _first_. I have every intention of releasing all source as GPL and trying to entice Linux ports of it all (and working hard to help that to happen) but I don't believe for a second it'll happen unless there's already a playable game there, so the initial phase has to be 'produce something that plays' no matter how long it takes. It's extremely likely that these will be coming out on the Mac first. That doesn't mean there's no Linux interest, it means I can't program Linux yet :) and won't wait until I can release on all platforms to release something.
I do have a sample or two of the space engine, at least. What you're seeing in the first one is the universe, which contains over ten million discrete stars (to be exact, 10,884,297). In this picture, every fully white pixel represents 255 stars or more, in an orthographic projection. Every star appears at a specific 32 bit by 32 bit by 32 bit location. The total data file that generates all this is sixteen megs... In the second picture you see a single slice through the universe, one sector deep, which shows the type of aliasing the algorithms produce. This engine is geared for speed of lookup, and the full map drawing program plotted the positions of 10,884,297 stars in about four hours on a 200Mhz 604 using a terribly unoptimised OOP basic (this, despite the fact that the engine is intentionally set up to make maximum use of bitshifts and rapid divides and multiplies, and also optimises the use of a PowerPC 'branch if equal' loop terminator)...
Again- this isn't going to make me any money (and God knows how many people even bothered to follow the link and read my whole, typically-long diatribe). However, it _will_ make a deeper sort of game possible, on lots of levels- I've studied the dynamics of many online multiplayer games (I'm talking Warbirds here, not quake deathmatches- _large_ scale stuff), and am also ready to extend other areas (such as ship automated systems) into mostly uncharted areas, i.e. only RoboWar has done what I'm suggesting, and even that is a very different flavor- I've been designing a special set of opcodes for player assembly language programming for computer aided ship handling- assuming computer cores that run at about 60Hz- again, yes I know I could have one running much faster, but I'm planning on having _thousands_ all running in one large-scale engagement. On having superbattleships built by the cooperation of dozens of players who must get together and arrange duty rosters in order to be able to run the huge beast effectively.... there are really interesting issues involving gameplay and how to get people working together to wipe out others (instead of just trying to go and directly wipe out others) ;)
You'll be hearing about this- and it'll see Linux- but it won't make me money, and it won't ever be mainstream. So much the worse for the mainstream ;)

Re:Supply and Demand

[Trepidity]

The repetitive shoot-em-up games are not "what people want". They are what stereotypical 14-year-old boys want.

Incorrect. The majority of the fanbase for games such as Quake is composed of college students. They're the ones with the 10mbps Internet links and LAN parties.

The reason games are marketed to those 17-25 is simply because they buy the games. My parents do not buy computer games. Not even supposedly "intellectual" games. They use the computer to do taxes, spreadsheets, and look up stuff on the internet, not to play games. I'd imagine a lot of adults over 40 are like that, and hence that demographic is not a good one to market your game towards.

Re:What a load of nonsense!

[Eccles]

Oh geeze.. This is almost too foolish bother with... The lottery is based on chance. Pure Chance. Killer games are based on quality, marketing, and consumer needs

But in a complex system, evaluating this isn't easy; moreover, the people in position to do this evaluating aren't necessarily competent at doing so, and may have ulterior motives (getting a bigger budget) that interfere with making the smart decisions. If everyone did competently analyze the situation with full knowledge and understanding, then there would be no lousy games or games that never ship at all. Clearly, given that there are plenty of games in those two categories, there are plenty of people with access to funds who aren't making the smart decisions, and are giving the industry a bad name.

I personally was part of a development team that lost lots of money for Revell...

Age differences

[bobalu]

I'd like to see the age differences between the people who automatically say "So get another job asshole" and the people with more supportive responses to this guy. The fact is he's written some really nice stuff - most of us would be really happy to do anything close in our careers. I have Music X myself, and it's a great package. To those of you with no sympathy I say go ahead, move into management now, because if you stay a programmer you will surely feel the same one day.

The Nature of Entertainment

[Skip666Kent]

Could it be the very nature of games as both software and entertainment products?

I think that's it exactly.

Given the modern-day multimedia, graphics-intensive capabilities of computers, the demand on game designers is greater than ever before. As soon as you CAN have an immersive 3d environment, the bar is raised and people will EXPECT to have a quality 3d environment. That's the software end. The Entertainment end is a whole 'nother ball-o-wax that most developers (let alone suits) just aren't prepared for.

For a game to be successful, it must be engrossing and entertaining, like a good story. Since it's also a visual medium, visual design is hugely important. There's sound involved, and the sounds have to ADD to the 'spell' of the game and not detract, etc.

Storytelling, Set Design, Sound Engineering...sounds like a movie! How many Really Good film directors are there out there? How many of the 'Really Good' ones STILL make bombs half the time? Now add the element of interactivity, and you have an even greater demand on creative resources to produce a successful game product.

There will always be a niche market for 'classic' style video games, which mimic/enhance classic non-video games (cards, mah-johng, whatever) or create their own clever abstract game environments (pacman, Tempest, - I can't think of a modern PC equivalent), but the bulk the market will be led by games that combine front-of-the-line engineering with high-quality and immersive environments.

To do this requires dedication and resources that few companies are willing or even able in their wildest dreams to support. Some try by hiring live actors to do static 'reality' bits, but these generally fall flat, as most gamers don't want live, uninspired actors intruding on their fantasy.

Hungry. Lunch. Good. Go now.

Ars Games

[Stargazer]

I'm glad that Talin has taken this issue up with the slashdot community. I'm not in the games industry myself (yet), but I am an avid reader of Game Developer. Rarely do you hear about a game that wasn't plagued by scheduling issues, or the frantic rush to hit the famed Christmas deadline. Some games have had absolutely horrible creation methods, simply because nobody felt like there was time to plan anything different out. I'm gonna get slapped for this, but the games industry follows the "if it compiles, ship it" philosophy more than Microsoft ever could. At least Microsoft delays their products. Not that it helps much.

You know what, though? It's a total damn shame, too. Unfortunately, not enough people are able to recognize games as an art form as opposed to something guys without girlfriends enjoy. Ask almost any game developer why they create games -- any developer, regardless of the game -- and I think half will tell you they consider it an art form. The other half just plain enjoys what they're doing. (These are my rough estimates, by the way.)

As games have evolved over the years -- in complexity, in technical ability, in sheer impressiveness (and hence expressiveness; at least, that's the way it is for many viewers) -- they have increased the capacity of their art. So it would make common sense that the games industry slow down to reach this art. Nope! Rather, the games industry is run by company boards who, for the most part, view games as a source of income rather than an art form. They'll be blunt about it, too. If they think your game sucks for any reason -- even in the raw prototype stage -- you can forget developing it further. It's gone baby, solid gone. When you get to the development cycle, it's dictated by them, and if you don't keep up to their expectations, you can kiss it goodbye. This is not an environment in which you foster creative, artistic thinking.

Take Zelda 64 as an example. (Console games may differ between commercial strategies, but certainly not their artistic qualities.) The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time had a long development cycle with a staff of 200 people. The result: a game which is detailed, enjoyable, and, above all, undeniably a great work of art. That's how everything should be done. Alas, not everyone is a video game genius and are willing to dictate things differently like Miyamoto. However, that's how you make art.

Video games have a great potential for art that no other art form has -- their inherent interactivity. Using this advantage, the art form can be molded to reflect upon what the player has done, and send them the message that the designers want to be sent. We should argue with the game companies to see this reflected in their games. Support games as art; not games as a way to fatten some CEO and give a company a good profile.

-- Stargazer

Dreamer's Guild

[ewhac]

You are strongly advised to check up on the history of a little-known independent game development house called The Dreamer's Guild, a company founded on almost exactly the same principles you mention. Talin was on the executive staff of The Dreamer's Guild.

Briefly, the Guild started getting some good contracts, and the niggly little details of running a business began to get in their way (things like payroll, benefits administration, legal counsel, answering the phones, leasing office space, etc.). So the Guild had to invent management. This worked sorta kinda okay until, one day, the Guild made a poor choice for their CEO, who sank the company.

I'm sure Talin would be the first to tell you that such an idea can still work, but I think you need to disabuse yourself of the illusion that "management" is irrelevant. Once you exceed a certain size (which is surprisingly small), it becomes necessary. I'd strongly recommend talking to Talin (or someone else in the industry) so you can get an idea of all the landmines you need to avoid in order to succeed.

Schwab

Re:Hey, my job sucks, too.

[scrytch]

What boggles my mind is that some people have actually told me "Cool, I'd like to be in tech support, how would I get in?" I gave 'em dirty looks like they were mocking me. I was a level 1 tech (phone drone) and I was doing nothing but internal support, i.e. no external customers. So if someone cussed me out I can and did call their manager over it. And I still burned out. Now I'm a level 2 type, I take only returned calls to ones I made, and having root access isn't a matter of if politics will ever allow it, it's a matter of when I get it. Know what? It still sucks in a lot of places, but I deal.

All that said it's good that the dark sides of any industry be exposed. More knowledge is a good thing. Overall though, the story seemed really lacking in actual anecdotes, and mostly contained a lot of assertions and opinions. Maybe true, but I didn't feel like I was being given a picture of the situation more than being handed a resignation letter.

What a load of nonsense!

[Corndog]

This article is full of illogical banter and emotional nonsense. He does not prove anything, and tries backing it all up with false examples covered by a mask of logic.

it sometimes seems like more investment money is actually wasted developing and marketing failed games than is made in profits from successful ones.
What a dumb thing to say! If that were the case, there would BE NO game industry! You want to know why game developers think their's might be the Next Big Thing? Because it might! And if it does, they are set for a long time to come. If it doesn't work out, they just got a bunch of nice paychecks.

The economic realities of developing games induces what I call "The Lottery Mentality".
Oh geeze.. This is almost too foolish bother with... The lottery is based on chance. Pure Chance. Killer games are based on quality, marketing, and consumer needs. If you match those up, you win. He whined about bad marketting, bad this, bad that, well, there is your answer! Your companies sucked!

I don't feel like going on. This article was one of the lamest things I have read in a long time. >:(

Dead on

[magic]

This has been 100% of my experience in the industry as well. I agree that the best game developers are multi-talented, with expertise at art, design, game scripting, implementation, and good old fashioned hacking.

I ended up working with a small shareware company part time, so that I could still work on games, but do it in a pleasant environment. Your list description of an ideal environment is what I strive for. Our company focusses on the relationship between customers, the company, and "employees". We have no salaries, so we are free to work on or start whatever projects we want, because it is not costing the company anything. If something ships, the profits are distributed entirely among the people who contributed to the product.

The down side of this is that you don't ship sexy, cutting edge apps. The things that ship as consumer products in our case tend to be simple Win32 arcade games, which have accumulated a small cult following and get a few million downloads a year.

However, we do have some sexy things in house-- platform independent (well, really linux, win32, mac, sparc... anywhere codewarrior or gcc compile to) games, 2d/3d graphics engines, languages, etc. that are developed and licensed to larger companies, as well as small but lucrative consulting deals for websites and small apps. We don't get the brand recognition of working on a product anybody has ever heard of, and you don't get the support of having up front resources to afford to hire people and buy art-- everything is through contributors who work for free (plus royalties, of course). We do get to work in an exciting, supportive environment (where everyone wants to be there and finds it fun!). It is comfortable, but I wouldn't say "low-key", though. There are a lot of late nights of hacking or design sessions, because that's one way great things get done in this industry.

FWIW, Morgan Systems is the company. You probably won't be impressed with the games, and they don't run under linux :( Maybe some of our other stuff will start to get out though; we have a simplified Matlab style app/language and ray tracer that are going to be released as open source, and run everywhere. Hopefully some of our libraries are coming to a game near you, but not with our brand on them.

Absolutely

[DonkPunch]

As a matter of fact, I'm looking for a job with at least 90% female employees right now.

I hope my wife doesn't read slashdot. :)

Amateur game development...

[Sun Tzu]

... is a lot of fun. No deadlines, no pressures, no managers, and alas, no money. The biggest problem is having to have a real job as well. ;)

Interesting, but does not quite make the point

[Victor Danilchenko]

The author's experience is obviously of value here, and his insider's perspective is important. However, I think that he missed the opportunity to point out the bigger issue.

Much of the problems he describes -- bad management, lack of well-understood engineering mechanisms, etc. -- are very widespread in software industry in general, not just the game industry. However, software industry in general is rather profitable -- and gaming industry, according to the author, is not.

There is a differentiating factor here -- there is something about the gaming industry that makes it work by different rules from the rest of the software world. Pointing out that difference, is what the autrhor should have done, rather than just enumerate the problems that plague software industry in general.

What is that difference? I don't know -- but I am fairly certain it's not the fact that the target audiences differ. Could it be the very nature of games as both software and entertainment products?.. It is possible, I suppose, but I lack the knowledge to say this with assurance.

In short, the author raised an interesting problem, but failed to dig deep enough for the answers, IMO.

--