Working in The AAA industry

[sof006]

Okay so while its not nice being made to work those hours nothing is stopping you from finding another job and leaving. I work 45 hours a week but thats a standard job. If you're working in a small team on a BIG game like Uncharted for a HUGE company called Naughty Dog which works for an even bigger company called Sony that wants you to work to a strict deadline then sacrifices must be made. As sucky as it sounds "if you don't like it get up and move on, no one is stopping you from leaving..." a lot of companies will say "Don't like it? There's the door". 

 

I'm certain your pay will reflect the hard work you've been doing, I can't imagine working as a games developer is badly paid.

[Snadzies]

2 hours ago, sof006 said:

Okay so while its not nice being made to work those hours nothing is stopping you from finding another job and leaving. I work 45 hours a week but thats a standard job. If you're working in a small team on a BIG game like Uncharted for a HUGE company called Naughty Dog which works for an even bigger company called Sony that wants you to work to a strict deadline then sacrifices must be made. As sucky as it sounds "if you don't like it get up and move on, no one is stopping you from leaving..." a lot of companies will say "Don't like it? There's the door". 

 

I'm certain your pay will reflect the hard work you've been doing, I can't imagine working as a games developer is badly paid.

There is plenty stopping them from finding another job.

Finding a job that pays well with benefits and offers job security isn't something you can always find easily.

These people have house/appartment payments, car payments, many have or are having kids and need medical benefits and they are also likely still paying off their college loans.

I've known people in many industries that have quit or been laid off and it took them a few months to find another job and sometimes the job is not only just as bad but even worse but they had to take it because they needed money.

It is unlikely that everyone has enough money to be able to survive with no income for a few month while they find a job.

 

I know many companies that offer benefits require you to be employed for a few months to a year before their benefits kick in and anyone with a family or is starting a family can't afford to give up dental, medical ect for that long.

[patrickjp93]

9 hours ago, kuzko said:

yeah, and guess whose competitive in this scenario ? underdeveloped country people ... oh wait, there are better things to work for less : slaves, yes perfect society where we are competitive!. 

You see this reasoning is fucked up right? no? oh well, I'll go fudge myself with notions like "arbeit marcht frei" that seem to be so relevant in those "industries". This kind of mindset is the baseline for abuses in which we can see one here. Let's not forget HR and management not doing it's proper staffing job... 

It's still not screwed up, because I don't advocate slavery. I advocate consent to work. If you succeed, you succeed. If not, then not. As for people in underdeveloped countries, you realize job creation and sending money overseas improves their economic standing which slowly lifts them to a higher standing, right? Macroeconomics anyone?

 

The games industry is like any other: keep costs down, quality high, and margins high. If you think you can do better, start your own games studio with better hours and try to make it. The industry has to compete for your labor too. That's why this is okay. You give informed consent to work this hard or not.

[patrickjp93]

8 hours ago, kuzko said:

Than you did not take Hofstadter's law into account...

 

It seems you like eponymous laws, then this one is relevant.

Parkinson's law of triviality: "The time spent on any agenda item will be in inverse proportion to the sum of money involved."

 

That's the issue, if you don't spend money on a project at it's start by staffing it, and you get late because you do not give the project headroom, it ain't going to help. Though, I concede that because of the dumb delays needed to survive, that's hard to do a project management through functionality delivery like Frontier does with elite dangerous or RSI with Star citizen.

Games really can't be delivered in an agile way to alpha and beta testers, or leaks and gameplay vids get out. 

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Erik Sieghart said:

It's a problem when they're paying 40 hours of salary.

But the problem isn't that endemic to the rest of software, just games.

That's because every half decent programmer fresh out of college, and even many out of high school, would love to make games. The labor market for that industry is highly competitive over what are largely the same qualifications. When that happens it comes down to who costs less, because the pay is going to be the same for all of these newbies. This is natural labor economics at work.

[patrickjp93]

Just now, Erik Sieghart said:

Well, no. The code they write is shit. If they really wanted cheap code monkeys they'd insource with H1B visas or some Indian firm.

I never wanted to make games in college and I still don't. Software isn't something you can throw low skilled labor at and solve. That's crazy amounts of counter-productive and will lead you to a code base that either has to be rewritten, maintained with incredibly large amounts of resources, or never delivered in the first place.

The U.S. has largely learned its lesson of outsourcing too much to India. The different working hours, language barrier, and quality of product just aren't worth it.

 

There are plenty of software firms (SAP) that get away with producing crap solutions on crap talent. The only thing it does well is analytics. Everything else SAP provides is a plague to the business world, but no one wants to pay IBM's database and analytics prices or be beholden to the Oracle-Microsoft alliance, so they grin and bear it.

[patrickjp93]

5 minutes ago, Erik Sieghart said:

Yeah, overbudget, buggy, and underdelivered software is pretty rampant in the business world.

Nonetheless, competent developers are desired everywhere.

Thing is, the grunts just script up routines for objects to emerge, move, and disappear. They set up the skeletons of the scenes. Anyone can do that. Then what few performance engineers there are hand-pick a few helpers and go to town when it's time. Otherwise they're just optimizing the game engine code and making coding and profiling tools.

[Prysin]

17 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

It's not a problem. Either you cut it and succeed with them or you can go to another industry or you can start your own competitive studio and put your money where your mouth is. You either accept their working terms or you don't, as long as none of them are illegal.

the problem is efficiency. Modern office, or "deskjob" based workplaces are structured more around being socially pleasing then efficient. Game studios take this even further by having "chill" areas. where people can go to take breaks and faff about. That isnt efficient.

 

Incentives must be made to make work efficent, long before anyone can talk about competition or being good enough. Some people may actually be good enough if you take away distractions.

 

Although, it goes without saying that the US work system does stack against you, the worker, more then it helps you. As the whole system is overly stacked towards the employer, not the employee. So "modern slave labor" is not far from the truth.

[patrickjp93]

27 minutes ago, Prysin said:

the problem is efficiency. Modern office, or "deskjob" based workplaces are structured more around being socially pleasing then efficient. Game studios take this even further by having "chill" areas. where people can go to take breaks and faff about. That isnt efficient.

 

Incentives must be made to make work efficent, long before anyone can talk about competition or being good enough. Some people may actually be good enough if you take away distractions.

 

Although, it goes without saying that the US work system does stack against you, the worker, more then it helps you. As the whole system is overly stacked towards the employer, not the employee. So "modern slave labor" is not far from the truth.

Studies prove you're incorrect. Having a space at work to decompress over lunch or a drink (usually not alcoholic) is good for when you've been banging your head against a problem and getting nowhere. The social lubrication keeps the individuals efficient. Mind you, abuses will happen as in any situation, and the abusers have to be cut loose or at least sanctioned for a while. That's just the reality of the game.

 

That's not true in the slightest. The stack is very much in the employee's favor. You just have to be informed about your options.

[Prysin]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

Studies prove you're incorrect. Having a space at work to decompress over lunch or a drink (usually not alcoholic) is good for when you've been banging your head against a problem and getting nowhere. The social lubrication keeps the individuals efficient. Mind you, abuses will happen as in any situation, and the abusers have to be cut loose or at least sanctioned for a while. That's just the reality of the game.

 

That's not true in the slightest. The stack is very much in the employee's favor. You just have to be informed about your options.

if the options are as following:
keep working your ass off with less reward

get fired for not making deadline

quit and find new job

 

then the stack is AGAINST the employee.

 

If the options are as following:
pay more for more work

hire stand-ins or extra manpower to make deadline

incentivize employee by acquiring tools rather then have them quit

 

then the stack is AGAINST the employer.

 

currently the US system is grossly skewed towards the former list of things. Most incentives are done through employer goodwill, NOT through actual labor rights.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

if the options are as following:
keep working your ass off with less reward

get fired for not making deadline

quit and find new job

 

then the stack is AGAINST the employee.

 

If the options are as following:
pay more for more work

hire stand-ins or extra manpower to make deadline

incentivize employee by acquiring tools rather then have them quit

 

then the stack is AGAINST the employer.

 

currently the US system is grossly skewed towards the former list of things. Most incentives are done through employer goodwill, NOT through actual labor rights.

Those aren't your only options, and they leave out severance pay as well. Employers are competing to get quality labor. Employees are competing to get quality employers. The exact distribution will vary from industry to industry, but the stack is certainly not against you, and it's not like you're unable to get more valuable skills ultra cheap these days.

 

And no, it's grossly skewed towards the latter. Businesses will try to get employees to accept more work for less pay, and they have an obligation to their shareholders to do that. However, if you put yourself in a position to be very difficult to replace, then you hold the cards. If you're not in that position, go get there. The world is not meant to bend over and hand you everything on a gold platter.

[Prysin]

11 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Those aren't your only options, and they leave out severance pay as well. Employers are competing to get quality labor. Employees are competing to get quality employers. The exact distribution will vary from industry to industry, but the stack is certainly not against you, and it's not like you're unable to get more valuable skills ultra cheap these days.

 

And no, it's grossly skewed towards the latter. Businesses will try to get employees to accept more work for less pay, and they have an obligation to their shareholders to do that. However, if you put yourself in a position to be very difficult to replace, then you hold the cards. If you're not in that position, go get there. The world is not meant to bend over and hand you everything on a gold platter.

thing is Patrick, in order to get into that place, a lot of US workers tend to slow down their pace. "Tying" themselves to projects long enough so that they can jump onto a new project and not get fired due to lack of work inbetween projects.

This is due to inefficient management on the "employer" side, not getting enough jobs into the order-books. However there is also another issue, being that AFAIK, there is no laws governing WHO should leave a company when times are bad.

 

here in norway we have a simple rule of "last in first out". Why? because it protects the experienced workers. Sure a boss CAN lay off someone if they are inefficient, but that requires a bit more reason for firing them then laying off the last guy cuz of economics.

 

 

Honestly patrick. I think you fail to see the issues in the US, because you ARE from the US. The system over there is not as great as you'd think, it is wildly skewed towards the "favored" and the employer side. Not the average. Unfortunatly, the whole country fails to grasp that the "average" is what makes the wheels turn. The exceptional few of greater skills is merely the lubricant that keep it from stopping. You need talented individuals to innovate, plan and inspire. But you just need plain old elbow-grease to get the job done. However skewing a whole system into punishing the herd in order to elevate a few is counterproductive to peoples health and mindset. It wears them out.

 

This also probably explains why almost all over america is so damn passive aggressive.

[patrickjp93]

1 minute ago, Prysin said:

thing is Patrick, in order to get into that place, a lot of US workers tend to slow down their pace. "Tying" themselves to projects long enough so that they can jump onto a new project and not get fired due to lack of work inbetween projects.

This is due to inefficient management on the "employer" side, not getting enough jobs into the order-books. However there is also another issue, being that AFAIK, there is no laws governing WHO should leave a company when times are bad.

 

here in norway we have a simple rule of "last in first out". Why? because it protects the experienced workers. Sure a boss CAN lay off someone if they are inefficient, but that requires a bit more reason for firing them then laying off the last guy cuz of economics.

 

 

Honestly patrick. I think you fail to see the issues in the US, because you ARE from the US. The system over there is not as great as you'd think, it is wildly skewed towards the "favored" and the employer side. Not the average. Unfortunatly, the whole country fails to grasp that the "average" is what makes the wheels turn. The exceptional few of greater skills is merely the lubricant that keep it from stopping. You need talented individuals to innovate, plan and inspire. But you just need plain old elbow-grease to get the job done. However skewing a whole system into punishing the herd in order to elevate a few is counterproductive to peoples health and mindset. It wears them out.

 

This also probably explains why almost all over america is so damn passive aggressive.

That's just bad ethics. You should always be doing your best, because otherwise you put yourself at risk of being fired.

 

No, has nothing to do with inefficient management. That's bad ethics/morality on the part of the laborers. Jobs do not show up all the time out of thin air, and when the economy is down, they can be scarcer. Getting a job done faster may very well mean the client recommends your firm to someone else or immediately hires you for something else. Slowing down your work because you don't see anything else in the pipeline is stupid 7 ways from Sunday.

 

That's a horrible policy. It incentivizes oligarchy and laziness at the top while also disincentivizing further hiring. Let the cream rise to the top and let the curds drop. That's the only way to be an agile, successful, sustainable company long-term.

 

I don't fail to see the problems. I'm proving your perception of them woefully incomplete and even false.

 

The essence of competition is that average isn't good enough. Did it never occur to you Europeans that the U.S. economy has produced the best products in the world because of competition?

 

No, the average just make it easier for the best to make the wheels turn. I see that in my current position because I'm solving logistical issues and tech debt while the team runs support and solves bigger problems. I make their more important job easier, and I learn while I do it. The average does not keep the wheels turning. It just makes the task easier. Now, I also solved a 5 million AUD problem in my first week and bent IBM over a table, and that's why I'm likely to be promoted with a fairly large bonus. I'm not average. I'm just doing the work of the average because you have to PROVE YOURSELF and compete before you can expect better than what you were promised to start.

 

The system doesn't punish the herd. They get work, they get money, they get time off, and if they want more they can get it on the stipulation they prove they're worth it.

 

Eh, that's just the pussified youth.

[Prysin]

3 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

That's just bad ethics. You should always be doing your best, because otherwise you put yourself at risk of being fired.

 

No, has nothing to do with inefficient management. That's bad ethics/morality on the part of the laborers. Jobs do not show up all the time out of thin air, and when the economy is down, they can be scarcer. Getting a job done faster may very well mean the client recommends your firm to someone else or immediately hires you for something else. Slowing down your work because you don't see anything else in the pipeline is stupid 7 ways from Sunday.

 

That's a horrible policy. It incentivizes oligarchy and laziness at the top while also disincentivizing further hiring. Let the cream rise to the top and let the curds drop. That's the only way to be an agile, successful, sustainable company long-term.

 

I don't fail to see the problems. I'm proving your perception of them woefully incomplete and even false.

 

The essence of competition is that average isn't good enough. Did it never occur to you Europeans that the U.S. economy has produced the best products in the world because of competition?

 

No, the average just make it easier for the best to make the wheels turn. I see that in my current position because I'm solving logistical issues and tech debt while the team runs support and solves bigger problems. I make their more important job easier, and I learn while I do it. The average does not keep the wheels turning. It just makes the task easier. Now, I also solved a 5 million AUD problem in my first week and bent IBM over a table, and that's why I'm likely to be promoted with a fairly large bonus. I'm not average. I'm just doing the work of the average because you have to PROVE YOURSELF and compete before you can expect better than what you were promised to start.

 

The system doesn't punish the herd. They get work, they get money, they get time off, and if they want more they can get it on the stipulation they prove they're worth it.

 

Eh, that's just the pussified youth.

bad ethics it is, but it doesnt change the fact that many resort to those kind of behaviors. Not my words, this is what ive heard from people online talking about their jobs for YEARS.

 

The system works by protecting the people who know how the company runs, how to make money and what to do. Work ehtics in norway differ from the US. Here we have a very black and white work ethic of "when you're at work, you work your ass off. When you're off the clock, you're off the clock". So efficiency wise we do well, which is why the system works in the first place. Different laws for different cultures. That being said, being a lazy bum can still get you fired regardless, unless if you work in the public sector. They dont fire anyone, because then the unemployment rates look bad. Fucking ridiculous waste of my taxes!!

 

The essence of competition can be seen both individually and collectively. America is focused on the individual, europe is more forcused on the collective. Average can be good enough if the collective effort is targeted well. An individual, unless working solely on its own accord, will be tied down by others in the workplace, slowing him or her down.

No matter how talented, if your bosses cannot get work for you to do, you are useless. Changing workplaces may not actually solve the issue either. Managers can get in your way for various reasons, be it to make themselves look good or simply by being inefficient.

You can rise far as an individual, and you can argue that the "effort and skill one puts in should be rewarded wholly not partially" all you want, but fending for yourself will only get you so far before you hit the limit.

 

Say you rise to be a CEO of a global company. Now you may be the "shining star". But suddenly you are at the mercy of the average. What then? You going to recruit people who are like minded, skilled, thirsty for advancements and full of drive and passion. They will be gunning for your position, you need to defend it. However, knowing how humans work, we arent going to "just let ourselves lose", and i bet you you would do everything you could to slow down their progress to get to your job. Because its YOUR JOB. And once you come to that point that you start slowing down individuals, you turn them into average. You reduce their potential in order to save ones own ass. And you become that boss you woved to replace because he or she was "so damn inefficent and i can do better"....

 

Say you give your position as CEO to a skilled invididual and move on to be a successful board leader of a conglomerate of companies.... Sooner or later someone else will be gunning for your chair, you will defend your job by pushing them down below you. Thus slowing down progress and turning them into average.

 

you see how the system is flawed? It goes nowhere, and incentivizes people to fend for themselves at any cost. And everyone is going to do it. That inefficient manager that SHOULD be replaced will do it. That CEO that is doing great will do it.

All while the average is kept nice and low. Rather then raising the average, to a "high average" you push the average down. Work them to the bone and discard them when empty. or worse, throw them out when they needed a helping hand. This further demotivates the remaining workforce, puts a mental burden on them, in addition to the physical burden. And then, it is only a question of when they will crumble. Not if.

America has risen to the top on the backs of their workforce by pushing it as far as it can possibly go without the workers revolting. Its funny how americans see their work system as "so great" when the byproduct is a lower life expectancy, higher workplace death tolls, higher workplace injury rates and worse retirement deals then the EU, whilst still love to bash the EU for being lax... Yet, the EU is a massive economy, although EU is not a country, so you cannot look at it as "one economy", despite labor laws being fairly similar between the member states. If you broke down the US by "states" as independent countries, then the "US" wouldn't be that amazing economy wise either....

 

 

[patrickjp93]

27 minutes ago, Prysin said:

bad ethics it is, but it doesnt change the fact that many resort to those kind of behaviors. Not my words, this is what ive heard from people online talking about their jobs for YEARS.

 

The system works by protecting the people who know how the company runs, how to make money and what to do. Work ehtics in norway differ from the US. Here we have a very black and white work ethic of "when you're at work, you work your ass off. When you're off the clock, you're off the clock". So efficiency wise we do well, which is why the system works in the first place. Different laws for different cultures. That being said, being a lazy bum can still get you fired regardless, unless if you work in the public sector. They dont fire anyone, because then the unemployment rates look bad. Fucking ridiculous waste of my taxes!!

 

The essence of competition can be seen both individually and collectively. America is focused on the individual, europe is more forcused on the collective. Average can be good enough if the collective effort is targeted well. An individual, unless working solely on its own accord, will be tied down by others in the workplace, slowing him or her down.

No matter how talented, if your bosses cannot get work for you to do, you are useless. Changing workplaces may not actually solve the issue either. Managers can get in your way for various reasons, be it to make themselves look good or simply by being inefficient.

You can rise far as an individual, and you can argue that the "effort and skill one puts in should be rewarded wholly not partially" all you want, but fending for yourself will only get you so far before you hit the limit.

 

Say you rise to be a CEO of a global company. Now you may be the "shining star". But suddenly you are at the mercy of the average. What then? You going to recruit people who are like minded, skilled, thirsty for advancements and full of drive and passion. They will be gunning for your position, you need to defend it. However, knowing how humans work, we arent going to "just let ourselves lose", and i bet you you would do everything you could to slow down their progress to get to your job. Because its YOUR JOB. And once you come to that point that you start slowing down individuals, you turn them into average. You reduce their potential in order to save ones own ass. And you become that boss you woved to replace because he or she was "so damn inefficent and i can do better"....

 

Say you give your position as CEO to a skilled invididual and move on to be a successful board leader of a conglomerate of companies.... Sooner or later someone else will be gunning for your chair, you will defend your job by pushing them down below you. Thus slowing down progress and turning them into average.

 

you see how the system is flawed? It goes nowhere, and incentivizes people to fend for themselves at any cost. And everyone is going to do it. That inefficient manager that SHOULD be replaced will do it. That CEO that is doing great will do it.

All while the average is kept nice and low. Rather then raising the average, to a "high average" you push the average down. Work them to the bone and discard them when empty. or worse, throw them out when they needed a helping hand. This further demotivates the remaining workforce, puts a mental burden on them, in addition to the physical burden. And then, it is only a question of when they will crumble. Not if.

America has risen to the top on the backs of their workforce by pushing it as far as it can possibly go without the workers revolting. Its funny how americans see their work system as "so great" when the byproduct is a lower life expectancy, higher workplace death tolls, higher workplace injury rates and worse retirement deals then the EU, whilst still love to bash the EU for being lax... Yet, the EU is a massive economy, although EU is not a country, so you cannot look at it as "one economy", despite labor laws being fairly similar between the member states. If you broke down the US by "states" as independent countries, then the "US" wouldn't be that amazing economy wise either....

 

 

Okay, we agree.

 

Those people will always be protected regardless of which country you work in. Good managers know throwing out the entirety of the old guard is never a good idea. However, there should be incentive to train the newbies well to replace you so you can move to an even higher position.

 

That's exactly the work ethic of the U.S.. We just generally do more advanced work in a more competitive field than Norway does, so the length of that clock cycle is necessarily longer because it has naturally become so.

 

A good laborer knows how to create work by asking the right questions. How can I make anyone else's life at work easier? That's how I created value my first couple weeks while my team got finished with a huge project and otherwise had nothing I could help with. I fetched coffee, I did document reviews, transferred data from legacy systems to new ones, and moved repositories from SVN to Stash, a locally encrypted GIT system. I also took physical agile boards and put all the data into Jira. There is always debt work that can be done at any company. You should never slow down a project to avoid being made easier to fire. There is always something to do.

 

There is no limit except the top of the company, and it's easy to go over the head of your boss if you're not a wuss.

 

When you are alone as the average, the average is limitless. When you can manipulate the average by being in control of hiring, you raise standards as high as you can to what the market will provide.

 

There's no need to defend, only do my job to the best of my ability. I have no reservations about losing to a greater opponent, and I'd happily step down into a lesser role and learn from the new head honcho. Even after four months in the position of CEO I could just retire! I don't need the money or the position to be happy! I just want to do my best and earn my keep for a company I think has a good vision.

 

Humans generally don't care about losing a game with no downsides. In business unless you just get completely fired --which you have only yourself to blame for usually -- losing your position to someone better shouldn't matter to you. Learn from them, learn why they're successful, and attack another way.

 

The system isn't flawed. Your understanding of it is.

 

U.S. Life Expectancy is the 2nd or 3rd highest in the first world, beating out the vast majority of the EU, and when you have a country so huge and diverse, you can't expect to be first even if you have the best medical equipment and doctors in the world.

 

The E.U.'s economic system is crumbling because of collectivism and horrible finance practices everywhere but Germany. If Germany pulls out of the EU, everyone else will go crashing down. The U.S. has no such problem.

 

Each individual state is in a far better position than the vast majority of the EU member states. Germany and Switzerland are the only two stable pieces left.

[CRSaka..]

@Prysin One day he'll step over the wrong line.

@patrickjp93

The other engineers aren't untalented we just understand job security a little more...Automation initiative for X "I don't think it will work." A lot of developers intentionally fumble projects to save their colleagues. If you go for your bosses job what does that show his boss? You'll be targeted for termination in Corporate America if you keep going that route.("You're 2 minutes late Patrick, I'll have to report you" - your bosses boss after you screw over your boss)

 

As far as elders being protected look at what happened at Microsoft, look at what happened at Raymond James Financial...you're insane if you think a director who's bonus is based off the remainder of his budget is going to spend bonus money to do skill retraining for the dinosaurs of Corporate America.

 

Not trying to discourage your "transcending standards movement", just realize that there are consequences for such actions...You'll feel real awkward walking into a company that laid off 200+ employees because of your actions. Sometimes you just need to fumble a project because it's the right thing to do.

[patrickjp93]

4 minutes ago, CRSaka.. said:

@Prysin One day he'll step over the wrong line.

@patrickjp93

The other engineers aren't untalented we just understand job security a little more...Automation initiative for X "I don't think it will work." A lot of developers intentionally fumble projects to save their colleagues. If you go for your bosses job what does that show his boss? You'll be targeted for termination in Corporate America if you keep going that route.("You're 2 minutes late Patrick, I'll have to report you" - your bosses boss after you screw over your boss)

 

As far as elders being protected look at what happened at Microsoft, look at what happened at Raymond James Financial...you're insane if you think a director who's bonus is based off the remainder of his budget is going to spend bonus money to do skill retraining for the dinosaurs of Corporate America.

 

Not trying to discourage your "transcending standards movement", just realize that there are consequences for such actions...You'll feel real awkward walking into a company that laid off 200+ employees because of your actions. Sometimes you just need to fumble a project because it's the right thing to do.

That's not how much of corporate America works. That is a story to keep everyone else scared. And also, I have never once shown up to work later than my boss or anyone on my team.

 

Skill acquisition is cheaper than ever, and frankly no one retrains senior management wrt knowing the company's mechanics. Training newbies about good management is an investment. You're looking at all the wrong parts of the puzzle and damning the whole thing.

 

No I wouldn't. If they got laid off they didn't make their skills valuable enough. Best of luck elsewhere. Employees are stakeholders in a given company. You do your best FOR the company, because the company is everyone around you. If you keep producing success, everyone benefits in the end. Your idea of noble sacrifice never actually plays out the way you think it does.

[CRSaka..]

2 minutes ago, patrickjp93 said:

Your idea of noble sacrifice never actually plays out the way you think it does.

Expand.

[CRSaka..]

5 hours ago, patrickjp93 said:

 I also solved a 5 million AUD problem in my first week and bent IBM over a table

IBM Global?

[Tech Enthusiast]

Crying about having to work harder then others to earn more then others. Priceless.

 

If you don't accept the terms, why sign up for it? Do a lesser job. Guess the topic would be about "i earn so little for my 40 hour job!" in that case.

[CRSaka..]

1 minute ago, Rattenmann said:

Crying about having to work harder then others to earn more then others. Priceless.

 

If you don't accept the terms, why sign up for it? Do a lesser job. Guess the topic would be about "i earn so little for my 40 hour job!" in that case.

If you only want money just target sales and make the sales director happy... their budget is always the most flexible and the things they need done can be accomplished without requiring 80 hour work weeks. You might even need to go to Amazon just to fill your free time, but your Director is happy so he won't care.

[patrickjp93]

1 hour ago, CRSaka.. said:

IBM Global?

Their software solutions team based in Sydney. Long story short I proved they were BSing about needing to nearly double our server capacity to get our vendor solution's software performance up to snuff.

[CRSaka..]

1 minute ago, patrickjp93 said:

Their software solutions team based in Sydney. Long story short I proved they were Being about needing to nearly double our server capacity to get our vendor solution's software performance up to snuff.

Not Global Services I have no input on it.

[radical1412]

23 hours ago, Castdeath97 said:

A similar topic was covered by Jim before, this was his two cents:

 

 

Also @rdical1412 did you read the posting guidelines?

 

Please fix your post in accordance to this before its locked or moved.

I'm sorry I didn't read the guidelines. So this is a duplicate right?

[MageTank]

23 minutes ago, rdical1412 said:

I'm sorry I didn't read the guidelines. So this is a duplicate right?

What he is trying to say, is that you need to quote something from the article itself (not the entire article) and then add your own original opinion on the subject. For example:

 

Quote

Amy Hennig is a veteran game director and writer responsible for many great games, from Legacy of Kain: Soul Reaver while she was at Crystal Dynamics to Naughty Dog’s Uncharted (she worked on all games including Uncharted 4: A Thief’s End for two years, before leaving and being replaced by Neil Druckmann as game director).

In an extremely interesting audio interview (split in two parts) with the Idle Thumbs Designer Notes podcast, Hennig denounced the unacceptable work conditions of the AAA gaming industry.

Then finish with some original thoughts of your own, for example: "So, what do you think of this? I personally think she should be grateful for the praise her hard work has amassed from the industry.".

 

You've already provided the source, so you are covered on that front. Just add a little more substance to the post itself to meet those guidelines and you will be fine.