Telltale Employees Left Stunned by Company Closure, No Severance(kotaku.com)
kotaku.com
Telltale Employees Left Stunned by Company Closure, No Severance
https://kotaku.com/telltale-employees-left-stunned-by-company-closure-no-1829272139
196 comments
There were people who moved to accept a job at that company a few months ago who got fired. Imagine uprooting your entire life, moving across country for your dream job, for the sole purpose that management can keep up appearances that they're a functioning company so people won't jump ship. The company was scummy and ran into the ground because of incompetence.
This is why I never relocate for jobs, unless they are going to include enough in the package or severance to survive for a few months if the job doesn't work out. I can't believe the sheer number of recruiters that ask me weekly to relocate for contract jobs on my dime. I'm thinking a lot of people fall for this or don't have a family, and are willing to take the risk. I imagine a lot of people get stuck in crappy jobs this way.
That's a more typically American phenomenon, I think.
Unless you live in an absolutely hopeless job market (e.g. small mid-west towns with nothing for 50-60 miles around them), then relocating for a job should come with absolutely mind-blowing perks and really be worth it for you to uproot everything.
Or you're relocating within the same region where you can still commute back every weekend or so (e.g. DC to NY or Boston to NY).
Unless you live in an absolutely hopeless job market (e.g. small mid-west towns with nothing for 50-60 miles around them), then relocating for a job should come with absolutely mind-blowing perks and really be worth it for you to uproot everything.
Or you're relocating within the same region where you can still commute back every weekend or so (e.g. DC to NY or Boston to NY).
There aren’t many cities with good jobs for the games industry. People don’t just uproot because they’re hopeless but also for the opposite, because they’re hopeful that the increased opportunities are worth it.
Always ask about a companies profit and revenue streams in an interview.
From the past accounts of top-level management, I'm not convinced this information would have been accurate and forthcoming. Which is information in its own right, but it means that instead of saying "is this company solvent", you have to say "do I feel like my question was deflected heavily enough to turn down the offer?"
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17130056/telltale-games-d...
https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/20/17130056/telltale-games-d...
I've been in game Dev for a while now, and your points are screaming that there's a forthcoming closure.
- Cutting a quarter of staff is a Hail Mary unless it's preceded and accompanied by a core strategy pivot, generally.
- Planning new and original IP is typical busy work for a studio that specializes in licensed games. Hiring is hard, expensive and slow; keeping the team busy is standard when looking for another license
- Self-evident much?
- Moving offices is a great way to save operation expenses when the lease is up, if you're desperate.
- Everyone blames management, but often it's the failure to find sufficient revenue is to blame _first_. Their games just weren't selling that well.
- Cutting a quarter of staff is a Hail Mary unless it's preceded and accompanied by a core strategy pivot, generally.
- Planning new and original IP is typical busy work for a studio that specializes in licensed games. Hiring is hard, expensive and slow; keeping the team busy is standard when looking for another license
- Self-evident much?
- Moving offices is a great way to save operation expenses when the lease is up, if you're desperate.
- Everyone blames management, but often it's the failure to find sufficient revenue is to blame _first_. Their games just weren't selling that well.
> Moving offices is a great way to save operation expenses when the lease is up, if you're desperate.
Even more cynically, planning a move helps defer costs in the existing space. Anything from new amenities to fixing broken desks can potentially be deflected with "it's not worth it right before we move".
Even more cynically, planning a move helps defer costs in the existing space. Anything from new amenities to fixing broken desks can potentially be deflected with "it's not worth it right before we move".
No reason not to defer to cynicism when working in gaming. ;)
> They really did not see a full studio closure coming so suddenly. Yes, they were aware that they were struggling, but the 25% staff reduction was supposed to keep the studio sustainable.
Yeah, so this is just pure mismanagement. Either they couldn't do math, or they signed an agreement that required some sort of hidden balloon payment, or they couldn't reign in their costs when managers were allowed to buy things under the sun.
> Their frantic development pace meant that they their engine was a patchwork of features cobbled together over the years, and not enough resources to rework it, despite their audiences stating that they didn't care enough to fix it.
Again, mismanagement. Someone came up with a term that managers could understand: "Technical Debt". The "Debt" part is the "interest" you pay because you are prioritizing features over maintaining your tech stack. And no doubt would add to their frantic development pace.
Yeah, so this is just pure mismanagement. Either they couldn't do math, or they signed an agreement that required some sort of hidden balloon payment, or they couldn't reign in their costs when managers were allowed to buy things under the sun.
> Their frantic development pace meant that they their engine was a patchwork of features cobbled together over the years, and not enough resources to rework it, despite their audiences stating that they didn't care enough to fix it.
Again, mismanagement. Someone came up with a term that managers could understand: "Technical Debt". The "Debt" part is the "interest" you pay because you are prioritizing features over maintaining your tech stack. And no doubt would add to their frantic development pace.
> they couldn't do math
Generously, bulk firings like that can be an attempt to add runway, or compensate (painfully) for over-expansion. Telltale management may have been hoping for a few more high-profile releases that would keep them solvent, and cut staff devoted to riskier or lower-margin work in hopes of surviving until those profits hit. When the numbers came in lower than hoped, there was nothing left in the hopper and no more point in delaying the collapse.
Of course, everything in Telltale's story screams mismanagement, and the overexpansion was pretty clearly an issue in the first place. A studio producing largely one-trick games around expensive branded properties can't spin up new projects freely for new staff, and even if they do they were competing with their own games to the point of market saturation.
Generously, bulk firings like that can be an attempt to add runway, or compensate (painfully) for over-expansion. Telltale management may have been hoping for a few more high-profile releases that would keep them solvent, and cut staff devoted to riskier or lower-margin work in hopes of surviving until those profits hit. When the numbers came in lower than hoped, there was nothing left in the hopper and no more point in delaying the collapse.
Of course, everything in Telltale's story screams mismanagement, and the overexpansion was pretty clearly an issue in the first place. A studio producing largely one-trick games around expensive branded properties can't spin up new projects freely for new staff, and even if they do they were competing with their own games to the point of market saturation.
I remember reading stuff a year ago about how the engine was originally written by the CEO and a large reason for its persistence until today is that it's basically his pet project. Do you happen to know how accurate this is?
Yes that's why they stuck with it for so long,. Not only was their engine just barely squeaking by, what also compounded the issues were the insane levels or micromanagement involved that were costly and overworked their staff to insane levels.
Imagine having to reanimate gravity by hand due to the lack of a physics engine, now imagine that happening over a scene change that happened during a management review shortly before the project was supposed to ship.
Imagine having to reanimate gravity by hand due to the lack of a physics engine, now imagine that happening over a scene change that happened during a management review shortly before the project was supposed to ship.
Wow, nightmare.
I wonder how many companies ever lay off 25% of staff and then actually come back to succeed?
I can't really think of any examples off hand.
I can't really think of any examples off hand.
https://www.mercurynews.com/2014/08/29/1997-apple-bites-the-... . But yeah, not exactly common.
Sony Santa Monica.
I wonder how much the closure was financial mismanagement vs their business model simply catching up to them.
TTG shtick was essentially “emotional abuse simulators” all their games had one trick get you attached to characters and see them die with very little actual player control over it.
They were one trick pony and the novelty wore off rather quickly.
Their games also were based on expensive franchises and they often offered the first chapter for free in order to hook people in.
They also never really developed their formula further the games didn’t became more interactive the same quick time events over and over that never really changed the overall story more than which one of these two will die and or betray you later.
I’m actually surprised that they lasted this long given how expensive it is to develop these games even if they weren’t technically impressive recording hours and hours of voice acting is much more expensive than shiny coding shaders.
TTG shtick was essentially “emotional abuse simulators” all their games had one trick get you attached to characters and see them die with very little actual player control over it.
They were one trick pony and the novelty wore off rather quickly.
Their games also were based on expensive franchises and they often offered the first chapter for free in order to hook people in.
They also never really developed their formula further the games didn’t became more interactive the same quick time events over and over that never really changed the overall story more than which one of these two will die and or betray you later.
I’m actually surprised that they lasted this long given how expensive it is to develop these games even if they weren’t technically impressive recording hours and hours of voice acting is much more expensive than shiny coding shaders.
> TTG shtick was essentially “emotional abuse simulators” all their games had one trick get you attached to characters and see them die with very little actual player control over it.
Some of their games were like this, but others were not. The Tales from the Borderlands series and Guardians of the Galaxy series were primarily vehicles for comedy, and did not rely on the trope you're mentioning.
Some of their games were like this, but others were not. The Tales from the Borderlands series and Guardians of the Galaxy series were primarily vehicles for comedy, and did not rely on the trope you're mentioning.
Their early work... Strongbad Episodes, and the Sam and Max series, were really quite amazing. TTG's later franchises never really interested me; I had assumed the games were just as good. To hear that their later franchises resorted to these kinds of tactics makes me sad :(
For the most part the franchises you expect to do these emotional harrowing stuff were the ones that did: The Walking Dead and Game of Thrones.
For the most part the games are "nearly as good". TTG burnt through a lot of great writers and craftsmen, and never quite replaced the folks that made the early work particularly great. They wanted to be a television studio, and a certain churn like that was inevitable, regardless of all the other mismanagement problems they had.
Batman was more about presenting the different "faces" of Batman and letting the player decide which fit best their playstyle/interest. The consequences of "is Batman the mask or is Bruce Wayne?" and "does Batman care about Bruce Wayne's friends/feelings?" There are some emotional highs, but nothing quite as "abusive" as The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones at their worst.
Minecraft Story Mode was their next most profitable after The Walking Dead, and just a silly joy/blast. Somewhat to par with Strongbad/Sam & Max. Recommended, even if you aren't a big Minecraft fan.
The Fables game (The Wolf Among Us) was a strong detective novel with fantasy elements. Playing to early work strengths when TTG was funding Sam & Max / Strongbad with CSI games.
Tales from the Borderlands was the closest to a Sam & Max in terms of humor of recent output. I burnt out on the grind of the Borderlands FPS games, but enjoyed a lot of the humor to them, and TTG knocked out of the some of what was missing in the storylines of the FPS games, and very much brought the humor. Even if the FPS games don't interest you, Tales from the Borderlands may be worth playing just because they are funny/charming/weird.
I haven't gotten very far in Guardians of the Galaxy, so I'm not sure how it stacks up.
For the most part the games are "nearly as good". TTG burnt through a lot of great writers and craftsmen, and never quite replaced the folks that made the early work particularly great. They wanted to be a television studio, and a certain churn like that was inevitable, regardless of all the other mismanagement problems they had.
Batman was more about presenting the different "faces" of Batman and letting the player decide which fit best their playstyle/interest. The consequences of "is Batman the mask or is Bruce Wayne?" and "does Batman care about Bruce Wayne's friends/feelings?" There are some emotional highs, but nothing quite as "abusive" as The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones at their worst.
Minecraft Story Mode was their next most profitable after The Walking Dead, and just a silly joy/blast. Somewhat to par with Strongbad/Sam & Max. Recommended, even if you aren't a big Minecraft fan.
The Fables game (The Wolf Among Us) was a strong detective novel with fantasy elements. Playing to early work strengths when TTG was funding Sam & Max / Strongbad with CSI games.
Tales from the Borderlands was the closest to a Sam & Max in terms of humor of recent output. I burnt out on the grind of the Borderlands FPS games, but enjoyed a lot of the humor to them, and TTG knocked out of the some of what was missing in the storylines of the FPS games, and very much brought the humor. Even if the FPS games don't interest you, Tales from the Borderlands may be worth playing just because they are funny/charming/weird.
I haven't gotten very far in Guardians of the Galaxy, so I'm not sure how it stacks up.
Borderlands was a betrayal simulator i didn’t really played Guardians of the Galaxy.
GoT was essentially the same as TWD.
However the gameplay was essentially identical across all of them a semi interactive cut scene that is broken by QTEs which don’t have a major impact on the overall story arc they at best just shift a few characters around the events still unfold as they are.
Expensive licenses and a repetitive “point and click” gameplay with dwindling sales just doesnt work and I don’t think it was a surprise to the upper management or the board. And I’m actually surprised it came as a surprise to employees who should’ve been aware of poor sales and high costs.
GoT was essentially the same as TWD.
However the gameplay was essentially identical across all of them a semi interactive cut scene that is broken by QTEs which don’t have a major impact on the overall story arc they at best just shift a few characters around the events still unfold as they are.
Expensive licenses and a repetitive “point and click” gameplay with dwindling sales just doesnt work and I don’t think it was a surprise to the upper management or the board. And I’m actually surprised it came as a surprise to employees who should’ve been aware of poor sales and high costs.
I don’t know where you work, but I can count on one finger the places where I actually knew the companies financial situation.
You can try to guess based on sales and nr of employees, but it’s hardly an exact science.
You can try to guess based on sales and nr of employees, but it’s hardly an exact science.
If you're not a founder or investor it's not worth worrying about since there's little you can legally do to remedy/fix the situation...the question is at what point as an employee do you become complacent enough to see a lot of strange behavior and decide not to leave.
IMO we give a lot of credit to these large companies and trust them to do right by us when they fire us/lay us off/we leave. I feel bad for all the people who worked at TTG that had no savings and no idea that this could happen. This certainly has the ability to make modern day slaves out of those that were blindsided by possible medical expenses, debt, and/or the struggle to find a new gig.
IMO we give a lot of credit to these large companies and trust them to do right by us when they fire us/lay us off/we leave. I feel bad for all the people who worked at TTG that had no savings and no idea that this could happen. This certainly has the ability to make modern day slaves out of those that were blindsided by possible medical expenses, debt, and/or the struggle to find a new gig.
> If you're not a founder or investor it's not worth worrying about since .... at what point as an employee do you become complacent enough ...
You are quick to blame the victims for being complacent, and at the same time you don't realize how important it is to know your company's financials when making employment decisions. Just because you can think of some strawman to burn, don't assume you're so much cleverer than everyone else.
You are quick to blame the victims for being complacent, and at the same time you don't realize how important it is to know your company's financials when making employment decisions. Just because you can think of some strawman to burn, don't assume you're so much cleverer than everyone else.
Is it an opportunity to start a side project with former TTG employees?
There are always alarm bells, free fruitbowls disappearing, drinks fridge replaced by vending machines and suchlike.
Their games steeply declined in sales after the first Walking Dead. From selling many millions to the last few selling only a few hundred thousand in spite of high profile licenses like Batman.
I’m not surprised TWD was fairly innovative for its time and also came close to the peak popularity of the series it was also likely the cheapest license they could get since IIRC they licensed the comic not the series from AMC.
Game of Thrones and the marvel and DC licensed games couldn’t have been cheap to license and they “upped” their game with getting bigger and bigger voice actors and for GoT they licensed the likeness of quite a few of the main cast of GoT so HBO and the actors had kept most of the revenue I presume.
Also as their biggest games weren’t something you would let children play i wonder how many parents assumed that shit I’m not letting my kid play this and the adults weren’t really interested in the franchise.
Most licensed games are a pretty big flop only the really good ones make it because they are a good game and not because of the license. Comic book and movie games have always had a horrible stigma with being poor games and in all honest the staleness of the TTG formula didn’t really help at that point.
Game of Thrones and the marvel and DC licensed games couldn’t have been cheap to license and they “upped” their game with getting bigger and bigger voice actors and for GoT they licensed the likeness of quite a few of the main cast of GoT so HBO and the actors had kept most of the revenue I presume.
Also as their biggest games weren’t something you would let children play i wonder how many parents assumed that shit I’m not letting my kid play this and the adults weren’t really interested in the franchise.
Most licensed games are a pretty big flop only the really good ones make it because they are a good game and not because of the license. Comic book and movie games have always had a horrible stigma with being poor games and in all honest the staleness of the TTG formula didn’t really help at that point.
> Also as their biggest games weren’t something you would let children play
Minecraft Story Mode was presumably their next best selling after The Walking Dead of recent output, presumably because it could appeal to a broader and younger audience.
Though that still isn't saying much looking at the Steam chart presented in the post. Though Minecraft Story Mode sales is also presumably under-reported in Steam numbers as you would expect more console owners among families with kids than PC players.
Minecraft Story Mode was presumably their next best selling after The Walking Dead of recent output, presumably because it could appeal to a broader and younger audience.
Though that still isn't saying much looking at the Steam chart presented in the post. Though Minecraft Story Mode sales is also presumably under-reported in Steam numbers as you would expect more console owners among families with kids than PC players.
I wonder how much this decline was to do with how heavily they embraced things like Humble Bundle
I for one never bought a Telltale game because I knew they'd wind up as either in part of a pretty solid bundle or even just a full fledged Telltale bundle. Can't think of another company in the games industry who so willingly devalued their whole catalogue as quickly. Assume the goal was to get loads of people up to date so they'd pay full price on launch for the next season of w/e but...
I for one never bought a Telltale game because I knew they'd wind up as either in part of a pretty solid bundle or even just a full fledged Telltale bundle. Can't think of another company in the games industry who so willingly devalued their whole catalogue as quickly. Assume the goal was to get loads of people up to date so they'd pay full price on launch for the next season of w/e but...
I think the use of Humble was definitely about the episodic nature of the product, but I'm not sure it worked very well. Humble buyers were presumably a bit less excited for the games than others, and I seriously doubt it was enough extra headcount to overcome the fact that Telltale basically sold games to shrinking funnels.
Everyone I know who enjoyed the first GoT Telltale game had quit by the third, but apparently there were six in total? That hardly looks like a sustainable technique.
Everyone I know who enjoyed the first GoT Telltale game had quit by the third, but apparently there were six in total? That hardly looks like a sustainable technique.
"One employee, a source told Kotaku, had been working until 3 AM the night before"
Moral of the story, never work for any company until 3am.
_Never_ work longer hours than you would be willing to be paid hourly for given your salary. _Never_.
I've been interviewed at companies where it was evident from my questions that I would make more working half time at my current employer than the hours typically worked at the prospective employer.
Really, I don't see why overtime is so rare in our industry. Not having it is more often an excuse to over utilize and under budget than to deal with extreme situations.
I've been interviewed at companies where it was evident from my questions that I would make more working half time at my current employer than the hours typically worked at the prospective employer.
Really, I don't see why overtime is so rare in our industry. Not having it is more often an excuse to over utilize and under budget than to deal with extreme situations.
The industry is largely white collar, and those jobs in America tend not to be unionized. There is also a not insignificant libertarian streak within tech. And games has the unfortunate distinction of having lots of people willing to work pittances for passion.
[deleted]
Never is a pretty bad rule. If you want to get ahead in life and advance your career, sometimes working more is the only way to do it. Everyone should decide at the end of the day how much they want to balance work vs. life, but for many people, working hard is the right choice.
Far from "advancing" anything, unpaid overtime consolidates the employee's role as a slave. A company that demands unpaid overtime is a mismanaged and exploitative company.
You should appear to work hard to get ahead. You shouldn't actually be working hard - if possible - work smarter, if not, make the appearance of working hard.
> working hard is the right choice
working long != working hard
working long != working hard
&& working long != more done
There is an abundance of employment available for software developers; it is a job seeker's market. There's no need to devalue one's labour in order to get ahead.
Besides, you're only as valuable to others as you allow yourself to be treated. An employer who is accustomed to exploiting you with ease doesn't have much impetus to improve the terms of your employment.
Besides, you're only as valuable to others as you allow yourself to be treated. An employer who is accustomed to exploiting you with ease doesn't have much impetus to improve the terms of your employment.
[deleted]
This sounds very similar to the layoffs that happened with ML and computer vision staff at Shutterstock. I heard it was a super unprofessional sudden thing, poor severance, no continuation of benefits, happening to teams that just had been praised for being high performers for short term business critical product deployments.
It’s not a gaming industry thing, and no job segments are safe from this kind of thing. Just a reminder to insist on a clearly stated severance package when you join, and walk away if an employer won’t offer that to you, no matter what you think about your personal leverage in the situation or your seniority or anything else. When it comes to generous severance that is stated in the employment agreement, do not take no for an answer.
It’s not a gaming industry thing, and no job segments are safe from this kind of thing. Just a reminder to insist on a clearly stated severance package when you join, and walk away if an employer won’t offer that to you, no matter what you think about your personal leverage in the situation or your seniority or anything else. When it comes to generous severance that is stated in the employment agreement, do not take no for an answer.
If the company burns through all its cash and craters in a financial implosion of bankruptcy and debt like this it's unlikely to matter whether you had a generous severance plan called out in your employment agreement. The best you could hope to do is get in line with the other unsecured creditors for your share of the tiny leavings left after the Aeron chairs are sold at auction.
People are blaming mismanagement, bad licensing terms etc., and while that all may be true, it is also worth noting that Telltale has not released anything really worth playing since The Walking Dead and The Wolf Among Us. No studio will survive after releasing ~12 bad to average games in a row over 4 years.
> No studio will survive after releasing ~12 bad to average games in a row over 4 years.
And Telltale was vastly more at risk than most studios because of their episodic games. They basically sold each game with a funnel, and one bad episode jeopardized sales for everything after it.
If some studio like Supergiant (or perhaps some more-prolific equivalent) released four years of bad-to-average games, I would still keep an eye on their output in hopes that any one new release might be great. But Telltale was putting out all of these big-license games and had everything past Episode 1 stymied by past weakness like a TV show with a bad opener. It was an almost uniquely vulnerable situation for a studio.
And Telltale was vastly more at risk than most studios because of their episodic games. They basically sold each game with a funnel, and one bad episode jeopardized sales for everything after it.
If some studio like Supergiant (or perhaps some more-prolific equivalent) released four years of bad-to-average games, I would still keep an eye on their output in hopes that any one new release might be great. But Telltale was putting out all of these big-license games and had everything past Episode 1 stymied by past weakness like a TV show with a bad opener. It was an almost uniquely vulnerable situation for a studio.
The probably felt good because they worked with well known franchises.
Sad for some of the employees I guess, but I think the company deserves this outcome.
Sad for some of the employees I guess, but I think the company deserves this outcome.
I was fortunate (or unfortunate) in my career that the first company I work for was acquired and a massive company wide layoff followed, which woke me up from the Koolaid on dedicating my life to the companies I work for, and I would never let any company determine my fate.
Yup I actually only prefer to work with people that have been laid off before. People that have never been laid off are more likely to be the "Look boss I worked till 3am to finish your stupid project" types.
Can't stand working with "do anything for the company" types. They are naive.
Can't stand working with "do anything for the company" types. They are naive.
This sort of thing makes me very glad I live in a country with legally guaranteed employee entitlements and public healthcare.
California does have some legally guaranteed entitlements if (edit) there is a mass layoff. Apparently like this case if a company just goes under with no money left that doesn't apply. What is the situation in Europe? The healthcare continues, but if a company has no money who pays the entitlements? Do employers have to fund a reserve? Or the govt pays?
In Australia (where I'm from) companies are legally obliged to keep enough cash on hand to cover employee entitlements, which at minimum is pay for the notice period + accrued leave + superannuation (may be more depending on your contract and time served with the company).
Above that, employee entitlements get paid out first in the event of bankruptcy/wind-up (i.e. before any investors or creditors see a cent).
Also, any director of a company that doesn't comply (i.e. keep enough cash on hand) is likely to 1) get banned from being a director of a company, 2) prosecuted, and worst of all 3) get reamed by the tax-office for the amount owing.
Healthcare is almost entirely public here. Employer-provided private health insurance is rare.
Above that, employee entitlements get paid out first in the event of bankruptcy/wind-up (i.e. before any investors or creditors see a cent).
Also, any director of a company that doesn't comply (i.e. keep enough cash on hand) is likely to 1) get banned from being a director of a company, 2) prosecuted, and worst of all 3) get reamed by the tax-office for the amount owing.
Healthcare is almost entirely public here. Employer-provided private health insurance is rare.
Is severance normal at a startup or a game studio? I would think first priority would be contractual obligations (payroll, contractual severance, vendors, etc.) and then only then severance.
I don't think severance is normal or expected of any business teetering on insolvency.
In my experience, severance (as part of your employment agreement) is not normal or expected for any job in the USA. I’ve been working for decades and have never seen even a hint of it in any employer’s benefits info. Severance is something only big shot executives get.
I got a severance package from a part time bank teller job after they closed the branch I worked at. I also got a severance package when a small business I worked at went under. I'd say severance packages are a lot more common than you think they are.
I've gotten severance (just like, 4 weeks or so?) from the last 3 or 4 companies I've worked for. Just as a datapoint.
When the one game job i worked at laid everyone off and files for bankruptcy i got 6 weeks severance paid for by the government about two months later. Of course this was Australia where companies pay a per employee tax to support this.
won't happen in the states.
won't happen in the states.
My father has received severance - not once, but twice from Kodak Canada. The first time was during their bankruptcy, the second time was because they cost-optimized most of the senior people out of his project.
It is normal and expected for the executives though. Somehow, even in the worst bankruptcies or closures, they always seem to end up with golden parachutes. Must be luck.
It can be, if layoffs are happening. From what I know, LucasArts employees got a nice bonus when Disney it shut down. Some other companies I worked at also have given it out, though it depends on how dire things are.
Adventure games seems to be a segment that is especially prone to boom and bust cycles. This has to be at least the third major collapse, following Infocom and LucasArts.
Even when well executed, the formula is hard to keep fresh, and the emphasis on story and writing leads to generally poor replayability. Particularly now, in the youtube/twitch age - most of the enjoyment of these kinds of games is watching the story play out, rather than actually playing the game.
Even when well executed, the formula is hard to keep fresh, and the emphasis on story and writing leads to generally poor replayability. Particularly now, in the youtube/twitch age - most of the enjoyment of these kinds of games is watching the story play out, rather than actually playing the game.
We share different views of the world...
First, Infocom was arguably supplanted by Sierra and other graphical games. They died during an oncoming boom. Sierra's reign [and LucasArts earlier titles] in the late 80's to mid-to-late 90s were very much the golden age of adventure games.
Second, LucasArts went on for about 15 years after they stopped creating / releasing adventure games. Their last Adventure game was Grim Fandango in 1998, and the closed in 2013. I can't see how LucasArts closure is unrelated to boom or bust cycles in adventure games.
Third, there are a huge number of adventure games coming out all the time. It surprises me honestly. While a few companies--like Wadjet Eye Games and Daedalic--seem to be doing okay, the bulk of them close up shop after one or two games. To me--as a lover of these type of games and a reviewer for JustAdventure--The market seems overly saturated for such a niche audience. There is the occasional big event such as the Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter, but the community doesn't seem to change size.
First, Infocom was arguably supplanted by Sierra and other graphical games. They died during an oncoming boom. Sierra's reign [and LucasArts earlier titles] in the late 80's to mid-to-late 90s were very much the golden age of adventure games.
Second, LucasArts went on for about 15 years after they stopped creating / releasing adventure games. Their last Adventure game was Grim Fandango in 1998, and the closed in 2013. I can't see how LucasArts closure is unrelated to boom or bust cycles in adventure games.
Third, there are a huge number of adventure games coming out all the time. It surprises me honestly. While a few companies--like Wadjet Eye Games and Daedalic--seem to be doing okay, the bulk of them close up shop after one or two games. To me--as a lover of these type of games and a reviewer for JustAdventure--The market seems overly saturated for such a niche audience. There is the occasional big event such as the Double Fine Adventure Kickstarter, but the community doesn't seem to change size.
Wadjet Eye, for me, have to make some of the best adventure games I have ever played. Heartily recommend Technobabylon and Gemini Rue.
I'm a huge Blackwell fan. I think they categorize their games as "Urban Fantasy".
Unavowed is sitting in my review queue...
Unavowed is sitting in my review queue...
LucasArts, while they made adventure games, was just as if not more well known for their action and franchise titles such as all the Star Wars games. Knights of the Old Republic and sequel, Jedi Knight and several smash hit sequels, TIE Fighter, Republic Commando (basically all the Star Wars games) were squarely in other genres, and all very successful titles. They had some less successful ones as well, which probably fed to their collapse.
But in general, the crux of the matter is that games are still adapting to internet-age business models -- selling a title for $30-$60 with higher and higher development standards has been unsustainable for some time now. Going F2P is also hit or miss: not every game can be a League of Legends, and 99% quietly die running deserted servers with a tiny tiny fraction of the player base they may have had in their peak. It's the reason indie games have risen in popularity -- AAA studios are now just hoping to arrive at a hit franchise, and then furtively milk it for as long as they can, still fully aware they're one bad title away from biting the dust. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of indies throw their life in the pool and a few good games reliably come out. Few hear or care about all the indies that disappear and return to their day jobs after a failed 5-year game. This model works fine for gamers, and making games is quickly becoming a cottage art industry like music or films - yes there are some studios churning out blockbusters, but mostly indies struggling, while consumers just get a glut of stuff at low costs. The unstable part is that most game devs can easily abandon the art for tech jobs with gobs of money, unlike musicians and (most) filmmakers, so it's possible the entire industry could die out if we enter an era of uninspiring games for too long.
But in general, the crux of the matter is that games are still adapting to internet-age business models -- selling a title for $30-$60 with higher and higher development standards has been unsustainable for some time now. Going F2P is also hit or miss: not every game can be a League of Legends, and 99% quietly die running deserted servers with a tiny tiny fraction of the player base they may have had in their peak. It's the reason indie games have risen in popularity -- AAA studios are now just hoping to arrive at a hit franchise, and then furtively milk it for as long as they can, still fully aware they're one bad title away from biting the dust. Meanwhile thousands upon thousands of indies throw their life in the pool and a few good games reliably come out. Few hear or care about all the indies that disappear and return to their day jobs after a failed 5-year game. This model works fine for gamers, and making games is quickly becoming a cottage art industry like music or films - yes there are some studios churning out blockbusters, but mostly indies struggling, while consumers just get a glut of stuff at low costs. The unstable part is that most game devs can easily abandon the art for tech jobs with gobs of money, unlike musicians and (most) filmmakers, so it's possible the entire industry could die out if we enter an era of uninspiring games for too long.
As long as there are some blockbuster indie games that make their creators rich, and as long as games are fun to make, I don't think we'll see the entire industry die out.
But yeah, making an indie game is on average not a good financial decision.
But yeah, making an indie game is on average not a good financial decision.
I think a big problem with the adventure game segment is it's extremely content heavy. There's not really any replay ability; so as soon as the content wears thin your players leave. Admittedly that's true of most game genres, but then there's other types of games like idk, counterstrike or minecraft, where people can keep continuing with the same content for a loooong time because the novelty comes from the interactions.
Maybe it is more of a niche genre, with the occasional breakout hit that make it seem like there is more sales potential than there is.
I've found myself thinking "I'm the kind of person who should enjoy adventure games" only to buy them and just not. At all. There needs to be more systems to keep me occupied, otherwise I'll just read a book or watch a movie. I think this latest cycle was buoyed by at least a few people like me.
I didn’t know that this happened at LucasArts. I grew up on Sam & Max, Full Throttle, and Day of the Tentacle. Any good articles about LucasArts’ demise?
https://www.digitalgamemuseum.org/the-rise-and-fall-of-adven...
I had forgotten about Sierra, probably because I was more into their Impressions city-builder and strategy games.
I had forgotten about Sierra, probably because I was more into their Impressions city-builder and strategy games.
The point of severance is to give ex-employees a reason not to sue.
However there is left point in protecting from lawsuits when there will be nothing left that can be sued.
However I suspect that not paying out owed PTO may be a different story...
However there is left point in protecting from lawsuits when there will be nothing left that can be sued.
However I suspect that not paying out owed PTO may be a different story...
It's really interesting to read this perspective on what severance is in the US, because in my country it definitely is just a right everyone has so that they can land on their feet.
In the US, we have unemployment compensation insurance for that purpose. I believe you can collect unemployment even if the employer is insolvent, because it's pre-paid by the employer, and comes out of a collective fund.
As I understand it, a severance usually involves the employee signing some sort of agreement.
As I understand it, a severance usually involves the employee signing some sort of agreement.
Unemployment insurance in California maxes out at $450/week, pre-tax. It can help you draw down your savings more slowly, but by itself is not even enough to make rent. The numbers may have made sense before the latest bout of housing price and wage inflation, but they don't anymore.
There are still places in California where it's possible to rent for <$1800/mo.
Right, but who's renting them when they're on an engineer's salary? You can't just up and move instantly upon finding out you're in the unemployment line.
You pay rent with after-tax money. No way are you renting for $900.
what a bargin
For a family?
So who pays for this insurance? Is it usually the company, or the employee?
Employers. See https://workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/uifactsheet.as... and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unemployment_benefits#United_S... for more information about it.
Note that the caps are per state, but is sufficiently low that it doesn't replace a professional level income. Therefore if your lifestyle is based on an income of $50K+, you are strongly advised to acquire personal savings for emergencies in case you lose your job. And C-level executives frequently have contracts which specify severance packages that guarantee their income for an extended time if they are fired. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute for more on that.
This can lead to weirdly misaligned incentives, like C-level executives on a failing company trying to get fired because their severance package will leave them better off than staying with the sinking ship.
Note that the caps are per state, but is sufficiently low that it doesn't replace a professional level income. Therefore if your lifestyle is based on an income of $50K+, you are strongly advised to acquire personal savings for emergencies in case you lose your job. And C-level executives frequently have contracts which specify severance packages that guarantee their income for an extended time if they are fired. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_parachute for more on that.
This can lead to weirdly misaligned incentives, like C-level executives on a failing company trying to get fired because their severance package will leave them better off than staying with the sinking ship.
>>This can lead to weirdly misaligned incentives, like C-level executives on a failing company trying to get fired because their severance package will leave them better off than staying with the sinking ship.
If anybody is fired in the U.S. they are almost always never entitled to severance. Severance is primarily available for employees who have been laid off. Such companies would love to fire executives in the true sense of the word if they had cause to save on any costly packages.
If anybody is fired in the U.S. they are almost always never entitled to severance. Severance is primarily available for employees who have been laid off. Such companies would love to fire executives in the true sense of the word if they had cause to save on any costly packages.
A contract can say whatever it says. If it says that in event of your being asked to leave the company that you get 6 months salary, then you get 6 months salary upon being asked to leave. Regardless of why you're asked to leave the company.
This kind of contract term is not given rank and file employees. But I personally know executives who have been fired and kept a salary because it was in their contract, including one who was fired in the last year, and another who maneuvered to get fired a few years ago because the company was going out of business.
This kind of contract term is not given rank and file employees. But I personally know executives who have been fired and kept a salary because it was in their contract, including one who was fired in the last year, and another who maneuvered to get fired a few years ago because the company was going out of business.
There can be a lot of confusion about what "fired" means. Most US states have "employment at will," meaning that there is no implied contract, and an employee can be terminated without giving a cause. Yet in the common parlance, "fired" means "terminated with cause." If an employee has been terminated with cause, they know it.
Also, companies avoid the term "layoff" because it could imply that an employee is entitled to be re-hired if business conditions improve. This can be the case in union shops. The term I've heard for a permanent termination without cause is "reduction of force."
Companies have to be careful about using "with cause" because they can get sued over it unless they absolutely have all of their ducks in a row. They will often pay the severance rather than expose themselves to a lawsuit and discovery process. They may also wait until there's a downturn, and get rid of the low performers all at once.
Of course like you say, if there's a contract, it can say anything.
Also, companies avoid the term "layoff" because it could imply that an employee is entitled to be re-hired if business conditions improve. This can be the case in union shops. The term I've heard for a permanent termination without cause is "reduction of force."
Companies have to be careful about using "with cause" because they can get sued over it unless they absolutely have all of their ducks in a row. They will often pay the severance rather than expose themselves to a lawsuit and discovery process. They may also wait until there's a downturn, and get rid of the low performers all at once.
Of course like you say, if there's a contract, it can say anything.
Both.
So what happens if the company in insolvent in your country? Who pays the severance?
owed PTO is probably the main reason behind the trend for unlimited vacation among startups as they owe employees nothing after they part ways (since no vacation hours were 'earned')
California they have to pay out PTO, that is, if they actually earned those benefits. When I worked in vfx, very few people were 'staff' and most were 'contractors' so basically W-2 with no benefits charging hopefully high enough rates to get by.
What they needed is to have a less reputable CEO - mine paid out $2k for signing a non-disparagement clause when 3/4 of the staff were laid off and the rest moved to Vancouver.
What they needed is to have a less reputable CEO - mine paid out $2k for signing a non-disparagement clause when 3/4 of the staff were laid off and the rest moved to Vancouver.
I feel bad for the employees. Getting laid off sucks, I hope they all have better jobs soon.
In terms of TTG as a company, they got what they asked for. It's too bad it didn't happen before they hired their first non founders.
I'd been watching TTG since before they had a name. The rumors were that the devs from the cancelled Sam & Max game left Lucas to make a Sam & Max game. This was second only to Star Wars for me at the time.
I bought it as soon as a physical copy came out. (I don't remember if episodes came on disc or if I had to wait for the season). TTG had built DRM into the game that prevented you from using it in a virtual machine. TTG's website had made it sound like the DRM wouldn't prevent anyone with a physical copy from playing.
I contacted TTG. Their rep seemed to be reading of some BS script. He was condescending. He treated me like I didn't know what I was talking about for not wanting to use wine or dual boot. I returned the game to the store* and acquired a copy that had been patched to repair the DRM. After that, if TTG came up in a conversation I made sure to give the person a heads up that they'd just need to pirate it anyway.
* This was a small store, their policy defined games rendered unplayable by DRM as defective. This policy caused them to not carry future TTG games.
In terms of TTG as a company, they got what they asked for. It's too bad it didn't happen before they hired their first non founders.
I'd been watching TTG since before they had a name. The rumors were that the devs from the cancelled Sam & Max game left Lucas to make a Sam & Max game. This was second only to Star Wars for me at the time.
I bought it as soon as a physical copy came out. (I don't remember if episodes came on disc or if I had to wait for the season). TTG had built DRM into the game that prevented you from using it in a virtual machine. TTG's website had made it sound like the DRM wouldn't prevent anyone with a physical copy from playing.
I contacted TTG. Their rep seemed to be reading of some BS script. He was condescending. He treated me like I didn't know what I was talking about for not wanting to use wine or dual boot. I returned the game to the store* and acquired a copy that had been patched to repair the DRM. After that, if TTG came up in a conversation I made sure to give the person a heads up that they'd just need to pirate it anyway.
* This was a small store, their policy defined games rendered unplayable by DRM as defective. This policy caused them to not carry future TTG games.
I might be misreading/misinterpreting..what was the reason for the closure? The article mentions it was financial but it didn’t seem absolute.
Another article states that only 2 games were actually profitable. Minecraft Story Mode, and one of the Walking Dead games.
All others were failed financially and did not recoup costs.
All others were failed financially and did not recoup costs.
The GoT game was likely a huge money sink for them, super expensive franchise and they had to pay for the likeness as well as some of the voice acting of some relatively pretty big actors.
I dunno why I was surprised by this. The company must have been super mismanaged. I know that it's a lot of hard work to put together a game, especially one with an outdated engine, but I'm really surprised that the games Telltale was putting out required such a big crew.
All the TT games had a lot of voice acting and motion capture, so that'll drive costs up a lot.
Once the novelty wore off people stopped buying their games because they were all the same and hardly a game.
So expensive licensing rights, expensive development due to 100’a of hours of voice acting and giving the first chapter for free to hook people in I think resulted in a very poor business model in the long run.
If you played one TTG game you played them all they never really developed their formula so it really bacame stale.
So expensive licensing rights, expensive development due to 100’a of hours of voice acting and giving the first chapter for free to hook people in I think resulted in a very poor business model in the long run.
If you played one TTG game you played them all they never really developed their formula so it really bacame stale.
They have quite a few jobs open: https://telltale.com/jobs/
Their web developers are gone...
This remind me that I've been meaning to pick up the Guardians of the Galaxy TT game, because I like the comics and the movies, but each time I Watch a gameplay video, I go completly meh, it just look so clunky and boring to play. I understand the appeal of those game is not supposed to be in the gameplay part of the game, but in that case, they should have done directly a visual novel instead.
Anyone know what the unemployment benefits are like in CA?
In WA state, "Unemployment benefits are made available through taxes paid by your former employer(s) to partially replace your regular earnings and help you meet expenses while you look for another job."
Not sure what the situation is in CA but I'd hope that, in the absence of a severance package, there's something else that can help them land cleanly here...
In WA state, "Unemployment benefits are made available through taxes paid by your former employer(s) to partially replace your regular earnings and help you meet expenses while you look for another job."
Not sure what the situation is in CA but I'd hope that, in the absence of a severance package, there's something else that can help them land cleanly here...
$450/week maximum. There's a waiting period (2 weeks?) as well.
Yup, without tacking out taxes. More like $410 I think when taxes are taken out. Luckily, the State doesn't tax it as well. I learned when looking more deeper into it that some states will do so. I think it's kind of shitty that it is taxed, especially if you live in a high COL like CA, but so it goes. That rate hasn't gone up in many years.
Wow, that's low. It's $749 here in Washington.
[deleted]
A lot of things like COBRA go though your former employer. I wonder how many post-employment benfits work at when the former employer no longer exists.
If you think about employment as a business transaction, then you should insist on "Cash Up Front", e.g. signing bonus, higher salary, or immediate stock ownership to offset your personal risk. Joining a company is more of a risk to you as an employee than it is to them in hiring you.
Basically it comes down to asking for "Cash Up Front". Expecting a cash settlement on the backend of a failed business transaction is fraught with perils of not getting your investment back in the company. And asking for severance is no different.
Basically it comes down to asking for "Cash Up Front". Expecting a cash settlement on the backend of a failed business transaction is fraught with perils of not getting your investment back in the company. And asking for severance is no different.
In an ideal world this would be feasible. Few people have the pricing power for their labor to do this. I'd classify what you call a failed business transaction as a failure of government to enact necessary labor laws.
Yes, this is something that can be fixed by law. At least my native country Finland has a sort of public bankruptcy insurance (“palkkaturva”) that extends automatically to all employees.
In the event of a bankruptcy leaving you with unpaid wages, you file an application with the same office that handles unemployment benefits, and they will recompensate you. C-level managers are exempt.
In the event of a bankruptcy leaving you with unpaid wages, you file an application with the same office that handles unemployment benefits, and they will recompensate you. C-level managers are exempt.
But taxes!
This is something entirely different. And FYI a strong incentive for companies to never offer any kind of severance in these situations since it's all socialized.
Better to just be transparent about things so employees can properly consider the risk in the situation.
Better to just be transparent about things so employees can properly consider the risk in the situation.
The issue here is that a bankrupt company is breaking the contracts it made with employees — and you suggest it can be fixed by having employees enter into another contract with the same company. Do you see the problem?
No. There's little that can be done when a company goes bankrupt.
I'm suggesting if people know that the company could go bankrupt, it helps them make decisions.
And that severance is a normal part of a contract otherwise
I'm suggesting if people know that the company could go bankrupt, it helps them make decisions.
And that severance is a normal part of a contract otherwise
What company is going to advertise months in advance that they might be going bankrupt? That's the surest way to make it come true.
This seems like some kind of weird libertarian fantasy where companies and employees have access to the same information and use it to make rational economic decisions. In reality, almost any failing company will use its payroll obligations as a bank of last resort to squeeze out that last chance of turning things around, and there's no contract that would protect employees from that.
This seems like some kind of weird libertarian fantasy where companies and employees have access to the same information and use it to make rational economic decisions. In reality, almost any failing company will use its payroll obligations as a bank of last resort to squeeze out that last chance of turning things around, and there's no contract that would protect employees from that.
"This seems like some kind of weird libertarian fantasy"
It's called the world we live in.
If a company's revenues are in decline, if there have been recent layoffs, well then the writing is on the wall.
A company folding should not come as a surprise to any of the employees unless the are utterly in the dark with respect to product development, revenues etc.
It's not a 'libertarian fantasy' to expect that employees etc. will have some idea of these numbers.
There's not much that can be done about solving the 'insolvency severance' deal. Severance beyond legal requirements is a bonus opportunity, and like all bonuses, it's subject to risk.
It's called the world we live in.
If a company's revenues are in decline, if there have been recent layoffs, well then the writing is on the wall.
A company folding should not come as a surprise to any of the employees unless the are utterly in the dark with respect to product development, revenues etc.
It's not a 'libertarian fantasy' to expect that employees etc. will have some idea of these numbers.
There's not much that can be done about solving the 'insolvency severance' deal. Severance beyond legal requirements is a bonus opportunity, and like all bonuses, it's subject to risk.
A privately held 100-person game studio doesn't share its evolving revenue numbers with creative staff. Why would the business owners do that, really?
Most private companies are strictly compartmentalized and keep production employees in the dark about the business side. Some startups do the "anyone can peek at our sales numbers and cash flows internally" thing, but that's definitely an exception even in the startup world.
Most private companies are strictly compartmentalized and keep production employees in the dark about the business side. Some startups do the "anyone can peek at our sales numbers and cash flows internally" thing, but that's definitely an exception even in the startup world.
Better it be required by law and provided by the government than you hoping you'll get severance and being beholden to a company's "generosity", and the company include the additional tax payments as cost of doing business (same as the other employment taxes they're required to pay).
The issue is severance during company bankruptcy.
Nobody ever expects companies to be 'generous' that's not a thing - the issues are in contracts like anything else.
Nobody ever expects companies to be 'generous' that's not a thing - the issues are in contracts like anything else.
Severance is never guaranteed though, bankruptcy or otherwise. If a company is going bankrupt, of course they're not going to have the funds to pay severance when closing up shop. Unless I'm misunderstanding the point (and the quotations around generosity were intended to convey that in bankruptcy, that doesn't exist).
Regardless, I suppose the end result should be to make unemployment kick in faster so you don't need an insolvent company to provide a severance they don't have the funds to provide.
Regardless, I suppose the end result should be to make unemployment kick in faster so you don't need an insolvent company to provide a severance they don't have the funds to provide.
Severance can be put in a contract like anything else, so it's as 'guaranteed' as any other obligation so long as the company can pay for it.
If severance is in your contract, and the company is insolvent, you are SOL. It is not like any other obligation, as an example, unemployment: your company pays into unemployment funds every month (mandated by government), which is what allows you to collect if you're let go, regardless of their solvency situation.
A severance agreement with a bankrupt company is worthless.
A severance agreement with a bankrupt company is worthless.
Yes, severance is like every other obligation, different only probably in seniority.
Obviously if the company is bankrupt they cannot pay.
Don't work for companies that are going, or could be going bankrupt. In the vast majority of the cases the writing is on the wall long before that happens.
Payroll taxes are just another form of income tax, the company doesn't really pay it, the employee does, economically speaking that money would go to the employee were those payroll taxes not to exist. The the co. does pay it is just an accounting issue.
Obviously if the company is bankrupt they cannot pay.
Don't work for companies that are going, or could be going bankrupt. In the vast majority of the cases the writing is on the wall long before that happens.
Payroll taxes are just another form of income tax, the company doesn't really pay it, the employee does, economically speaking that money would go to the employee were those payroll taxes not to exist. The the co. does pay it is just an accounting issue.
And for most software companies, seniority is irrelevant. There aren't any assets to split up, so you'll be the first in line to get your slice of nothing.
So in a world where there's a glut of labor, you're absolutely right. We, however, are not in a glut of labor for software engineers and game designers.
And besides, if you explained to the employer the risks you forsee in joining their company, they will most likely understand that reason for asking for a higher salary than the norm.
And besides, if you explained to the employer the risks you forsee in joining their company, they will most likely understand that reason for asking for a higher salary than the norm.
There absolutely is far more labor than positions available for game designers. Same for game programmers, many of whom have education and background so specific to games that they are effectively unemployable outside that industry. There are a bunch of schools that train hundreds of students on nothing but how to build high-level game logic in Unity.
Almost everyone directly involved in production of game titles (i.e. not middleware) would be financially much better off taking the skills they already have and working in another industry—e.g. management for game designers, tech for programmers—with the possible exceptions of artists and musicians.
Almost everyone directly involved in production of game titles (i.e. not middleware) would be financially much better off taking the skills they already have and working in another industry—e.g. management for game designers, tech for programmers—with the possible exceptions of artists and musicians.
To some extent, you're right. Point taken, there is a glut of game engineers. However, your comment about people being virtually unemployable outside the game industry rings hollow.
In the course of my career, there have been many people from a variety of backgrounds that became full fledged software engineers. One was a truck driver who became a top Java coder at the company I used to work for.
And the game engineer has a step up on that guy, since he actually understands how to code. He just needs to understand the way the web works.
In the course of my career, there have been many people from a variety of backgrounds that became full fledged software engineers. One was a truck driver who became a top Java coder at the company I used to work for.
And the game engineer has a step up on that guy, since he actually understands how to code. He just needs to understand the way the web works.
We, however, are not in a glut of labor for software engineers and game designers
If that's true, why are you folks working in open offices and are wearing noise-cancelling headphones?
If that's true, why are you folks working in open offices and are wearing noise-cancelling headphones?
Because the price of rent in major city centres is ludicrous, I assume.
I’m thinking beyond software engineers. I’m thinking about people who don’t have pricing power for their labor and are not at all in a position to negotiate. They have to rely on government to help them with unequal balance in power when it comes to pricing for their labor.
I have a game design degree... And there are waaaaay more of us than there are companies to hire us. I ended working with other things because all game companies I tried wanted to offer minimum wages because there was tons of people trying to get into the industry so no reason to offer more
game industry workers don't have the same bargaining power that people in other industries have.
> "Cash Up Front" ... or immediate stock ownership to offset your personal risk
so a grant with no vesting schedule? please enlighten us as to what employers are actually giving out such favorable deals.
> "Cash Up Front" ... or immediate stock ownership to offset your personal risk
so a grant with no vesting schedule? please enlighten us as to what employers are actually giving out such favorable deals.
I don't mean to be callous, but the game industry is one where much of the benefit comes from the fact that one gets to work on games as opposed to B2B SAAS apps or other banal businesses. In exchange for getting to work on games, you are taking a lower salary, higher competition, and much less stable working environment.
It's very similar to sports; there are many more people who want to work in sports than there are jobs available, so the ones that do end up with jobs working for a team are overworked and underpaid despite being in the top single-digit percentile of applicants. I imagine the same is true for other entertainment industries, but I don't know enough about them to comment.
There are, of course, people in these industries who do have bargaining power, but it's a very small minority of those with outstanding reputations.
It's very similar to sports; there are many more people who want to work in sports than there are jobs available, so the ones that do end up with jobs working for a team are overworked and underpaid despite being in the top single-digit percentile of applicants. I imagine the same is true for other entertainment industries, but I don't know enough about them to comment.
There are, of course, people in these industries who do have bargaining power, but it's a very small minority of those with outstanding reputations.
much of the benefit comes from the fact that one gets to work on games as opposed to B2B SAAS apps or other banal businesses
I’ve sometimes wondered if that’s true. I mean debugging a race condition in C++ is going to be the same in a game engine as in a trading engine right? Except the latter will be well paid and secure.
I’ve sometimes wondered if that’s true. I mean debugging a race condition in C++ is going to be the same in a game engine as in a trading engine right? Except the latter will be well paid and secure.
For some people, the mere fact that what they're working on produces joy rather than ??? is worth the pay/security difference, even if the everyday work itself is nearly the same.
I can imagine quite a few benefits, to be honest. You get to work with other people who decided to make the same sacrifice, meaning you have something more in common with your coworkers through your work than just picking the highest paying job. You get to say "I did this" and point to a part of a game that potentially millions of people are playing.
If I were evaluating two otherwise equal jobs, I could see myself taking a $5k or maybe even $10k lower salary for those kinds of benefits. The cost is much higher, though, (in terms of salary, job security, and overtime requirement) which is why I've never worked for a game company and probably won't in the future.
I can imagine quite a few benefits, to be honest. You get to work with other people who decided to make the same sacrifice, meaning you have something more in common with your coworkers through your work than just picking the highest paying job. You get to say "I did this" and point to a part of a game that potentially millions of people are playing.
If I were evaluating two otherwise equal jobs, I could see myself taking a $5k or maybe even $10k lower salary for those kinds of benefits. The cost is much higher, though, (in terms of salary, job security, and overtime requirement) which is why I've never worked for a game company and probably won't in the future.
> For some people, the mere fact that what they're working on produces joy
Besides joy, games can also bring social alienation and stunted development for kids and teenagers. I for one am not sure if games are making the world better or worse.
Besides joy, games can also bring social alienation and stunted development for kids and teenagers. I for one am not sure if games are making the world better or worse.
If you view your work through a lens of pure abstraction and intellectual curiosity, what's to stop you from working on something that hurts people, just because the problems are interesting?
There are dark sides to every industry, for example when does a game cross the line into being a Skinner box? I don’t think it’s as simple as industry A unalloyed good, industry B unmitigated evil.
A company is not either "good" or "evil"; it's not binary, there's no evil bit in corporate ethos. Some companies are more evil than others, and to pretend everything slots into either "good" or "evil" and all "evil" companies are equivalent is an act of cowardice. Working for IBM during the Holocaust is not comparable to working at Zynga during the peak of Farmville. It is dishonest to look at your own life from a standpoint of pure rationalism and reject your own humanity, your own human experience, and how your actions affect other people's lives.
It would depend on that person’s moral preferences and perceived value of benefits/drawbacks a company offers. Your “harm” might be someone else’s “good” (see: other person in this thread condemning games).
of course it's not callous, you're describing purpose as a motivator. Most people in most industries in most societies in most parts of the world are at least partly motivated by purpose. It's the opposite that is callous: to see every C++ programming job as being equivalent. Seeing programming jobs only through the lens of "what programming problems am I solving" and "what tools am I using" is nihilist.
Callous would be working for a company that hurts people when your labor has enough optionality that you could work elsewhere.
Callous would be working for a company that hurts people when your labor has enough optionality that you could work elsewhere.
Callous in that my comment might be read as “the people who got fired with no severance deserved it.”
I’m closer to “The people who got fired with no severance knew what they were getting into with this industry, and if they didn’t that ignorance is their own fault,” which might also be read as callous.
I’m closer to “The people who got fired with no severance knew what they were getting into with this industry, and if they didn’t that ignorance is their own fault,” which might also be read as callous.
Why have game industry workers not unionized? If now isn’t the time, I don’t know when is.
EDIT: I stand corrected.
EDIT: I stand corrected.
Only 7% of private sector laborers are in a union of any kind in the US. That rate has fallen sharply for several decades, and the political apparatus of the United States, especially the Republican party, has been deliberately eradicating labor unions since WWII. That's the whole "Right to Work" thing.
umm, maybe start here and just ... I dunno, click around a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...
umm, maybe start here and just ... I dunno, click around a bit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_unions_in_the_United_Sta...
There are ongoing efforts to fix this.
While I agree, there are probably a handful of people who could actually make that happen. Most others would be told "I'm sorry, the position has been filled." It's a product of the vast power disparity between companies and individuals.
[deleted]
This type of stuff happened a lot during the dotcom bust. It seemed like good times would last forever. People would get hired with great salary, options, benefits, etc and fly across the country to start their new jobs only to find the business had shut down. It's insane. These companies would hold job interviews and hire people knowing full well they are about to go close shop.
Man, the gaming industry is crazy.
The worst part for many of these people is that our country still links health insurance with your employer. It is bad enough to suddenly lose your job and primary source of income, but that type of thing is often unavoidable when a company goes belly up. However only getting a week's notice before all your health insurance benefits disappear is the type of thing that just shouldn't happen in this country.
Also notable that buying health insurance on your own, versus through your employer is typically 2 to 4x the cost.
You can purchase your old benefit through FMLA for up to 36 months in an involuntary departure, but you pay 104% of the cost that previously was split between you and the employer.
What if your employer went bankrupt?
What does the cause matter? Company's dead, the employee "involuntarily departed."
The cause matters because the right to individually buy into the existing employer-sponsored group health plan.
So, if the employer no longer exists, and the employer-sponsored health plan no longer exists, the right to buy in is meaningless.
So, if the employer no longer exists, and the employer-sponsored health plan no longer exists, the right to buy in is meaningless.
If your company is buying from an insurance company, that insurance company is required to offer the same plan to the former employee.
It matters if it was a self-insured plan i.e. the company itself paid insurance claims.
In my case, my company "self-insures" but they hire processors (Bluecross, CIGNA, etc) to handle the claims. I doubt that any employer is processing all claims themselves directly. I would have to do the research, but it seems sensible to me that the processor would require some amount of money in escrow (or some other insurance policy) to cover such an event.
Most companies do and thus, most people believe they have a policy from the processor, not their company. Also many companies hire processors for payroll too (ADP and the likes). Does it seem sensible to you that in this case the payroll processor would require some amount of money in escrow to cover severance, PTO, California's WARN etc in case of bankruptcy?
Similar to people thinking they have a policy from the processor rather than their employer, health providers are completely unaware that my employer pays the bills. If the providers don't get paid according to the contract, they'll go after the processor. The processor wants a buffer, insists on escrow or something.
As employees, people are seldom under the delusion that they work for, e.g., ADP. My last company paid me through a processor. My direct deposits showed as coming from the processor. To any bank, it looked as if I was employed by the processor, but the employees knew who the employer was. Should the employer suddenly cease to exist and owe employees anything, employees will go after the employer, not ADP.
As employees, people are seldom under the delusion that they work for, e.g., ADP. My last company paid me through a processor. My direct deposits showed as coming from the processor. To any bank, it looked as if I was employed by the processor, but the employees knew who the employer was. Should the employer suddenly cease to exist and owe employees anything, employees will go after the employer, not ADP.
> If the providers don't get paid according to the contract, they'll go after the processor.
No, not really. Do a search of "insurance claim denied" and see who is on the hook. Even in the case when the processor simply decides not to pay.
No, not really. Do a search of "insurance claim denied" and see who is on the hook. Even in the case when the processor simply decides not to pay.
" the cost that previously was split between you and the employer"
Employers usually pay at least half, so this doesn't change my 2x-4x range.
Employers usually pay at least half, so this doesn't change my 2x-4x range.
I would assume that an actuary might put the cost of an unemployed person twice that than an employed person. Because technically people with chronic health problems would tend to be unemployed.
I would also suspect a significant part of the difference is that the company is likely subsidizing the premium cost.
"Hello, cobra? I'd like to pay $1,300 for a month of health insurance"
There is some small amount of protection involved. They have to offer COBRA (I'm not sure about a company going belly up) at the same rate they pay. Which means you get a negotiated rate. I've done this and it's fucking expensive but it works. The shit part is that small companies are exempt, which makes sense but can still suck. I am also not sure what happens if the company is filing bankruptcy or not. So maybe they can get out of it.
"It works" means if you have the money you can buy it. If you've don't have 6 months of expenses saved you're already in trouble, add the $650-1200 a month for COBRA and most people would be on the street.
The only good thing is since they hard laid you off you can immediately apply for obamacare/medicare and pay nothing out of pocket because you have 0 income other than unemployment.
The only good thing is since they hard laid you off you can immediately apply for obamacare/medicare and pay nothing out of pocket because you have 0 income other than unemployment.
Which is better than absolutely nothing, but now you have to pay the full company rate, which is usually much higher than someone who now doesn't have a job can afford.
I'm not saying it's good or the right solution, but there is something there. I just think it's fair to point out that they have an option even if it does suck.
What happens in the US if you leave your employer when in a degraded health state (let's say cancer)?
You have a few options. Here they are in descending order of preference
* Hope your employer is compassionate and keeps you on their plan. I have no data on this, but anecdotally it is surprisingly common. Companies can be heartless when dealing with large groups of employees, but it is much harder to rip away Karen from accounting's health insurance as she is going through chemo.
* Hope your spouse (or parents if you are young enough) has insurance and they can add you to their plan.
* Buy in to your current insurance plan through various government programs (COBRA is one program that a lot of other comments are mentioning) . I don't have all the details on how this changed after Obamacare, but there were generally limits on how long you could do this and the costs were much higher than what your plan previously cost you and your employer.
* Buy a new insurance plan on the open market. This would have been obscenely expensive for someone with cancer before Obamacare's preexisting condition protections, but even with those reforms it still is a huge expense.
* Pay for your medical care out of pocket, which in the case of cancer will almost certainly result in you going bankrupt. Depending on where you get your statistics, there is something like 500,000 - 1 million bankruptcies in the US a year that are related to medical expenses.
* Hope your employer is compassionate and keeps you on their plan. I have no data on this, but anecdotally it is surprisingly common. Companies can be heartless when dealing with large groups of employees, but it is much harder to rip away Karen from accounting's health insurance as she is going through chemo.
* Hope your spouse (or parents if you are young enough) has insurance and they can add you to their plan.
* Buy in to your current insurance plan through various government programs (COBRA is one program that a lot of other comments are mentioning) . I don't have all the details on how this changed after Obamacare, but there were generally limits on how long you could do this and the costs were much higher than what your plan previously cost you and your employer.
* Buy a new insurance plan on the open market. This would have been obscenely expensive for someone with cancer before Obamacare's preexisting condition protections, but even with those reforms it still is a huge expense.
* Pay for your medical care out of pocket, which in the case of cancer will almost certainly result in you going bankrupt. Depending on where you get your statistics, there is something like 500,000 - 1 million bankruptcies in the US a year that are related to medical expenses.
> 500,000 - 1 million bankruptcies in the US a year
Really? So, assuming there's 125 million households in the US, a person has ~25-50% (derived with simple probabibility math) of becoming bankrupt over medical bills at some point of their life? That sounds like BS.
Really? So, assuming there's 125 million households in the US, a person has ~25-50% (derived with simple probabibility math) of becoming bankrupt over medical bills at some point of their life? That sounds like BS.
A bit more than half of bankruptcies are medical. And you're forgetting that someone can declare bankruptcy multiple times in their life. But yes, it's a savage system.
The Affordable Care Act did stop the practice of refusing coverage for preexisting conditions. So you can get insurance. The cost is high getting it on your own, not due to the condition, but because the employer isn't subsidizing it.
See https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...
See https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co...
For acute emergencies, like a heart attack or car accident, US hospitals are obligated to treat your immediate needs if you enter the lobby.
You just clutch your chest and say, "Help, I think I'm having a heart attack!"
Sadly, cancer doesn't qualify. Either you pony up $50,000 - $200,000 in the hospital lobby, or they call a security guard and escort you out of the building. Then you go home and die.
You just clutch your chest and say, "Help, I think I'm having a heart attack!"
Sadly, cancer doesn't qualify. Either you pony up $50,000 - $200,000 in the hospital lobby, or they call a security guard and escort you out of the building. Then you go home and die.
Pretty good summary of "uncompensated care" here:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/03/who-...
The 1985 Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires hospitals to provide emergency services "regardless of ability to pay".
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMT...
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/03/who-...
The 1985 Emergency Medical Treatment & Labor Act requires hospitals to provide emergency services "regardless of ability to pay".
https://www.cms.gov/Regulations-and-Guidance/Legislation/EMT...
You go bankrupt and die.
Under certain circumstances, you can continue under your employer's plan for a certain period of time at more than two times the cost.
Of course, you now how have the problem of paying more than double in premiums alone without an income.
Of course, you now how have the problem of paying more than double in premiums alone without an income.
Best approach is probably to be a multimillionaire...
Just another among 10s of reasons why healthcare shouldn't be left to the market. Lining up capitalist incentives with public health is incredibly hard -- the people who need more expensive treatment more badly are almost always the people who are less capable of affording it, for evident reasons: being invalid made them unable to work, being in poor conditions in the first place led to their health conditions, it's all a vicious cycle.
It's fine to have subsidized higher tier insurance as an employee benefit, but basic coverage should be part of normal social security, or, in an ideal universe (or nordic country), something that hospitals don't even bill for because a few billion from taxes could go into the healthcare industry instead of military or roads.
It's fine to have subsidized higher tier insurance as an employee benefit, but basic coverage should be part of normal social security, or, in an ideal universe (or nordic country), something that hospitals don't even bill for because a few billion from taxes could go into the healthcare industry instead of military or roads.
Interesting to note though, employer provided health insurance is a direct outcome of govt policy:
Most insurance in the first half of the 20th century was bought privately, but few people wanted it. In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers. Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance. Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...
Most insurance in the first half of the 20th century was bought privately, but few people wanted it. In 1942, with so many eligible workers diverted to military service, the nation was facing a severe labor shortage. Economists feared that businesses would keep raising salaries to compete for workers, and that inflation would spiral out of control as the country came out of the Depression. To prevent this, President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers. Businesses were smart, though, and instead they began to use benefits to compete. Specifically, to offer more, and more generous, health care insurance. Then, in 1943, the Internal Revenue Service decided that employer-based health insurance should be exempt from taxation. This made it cheaper to get health insurance through a job than by other means.
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/05/upshot/the-real-reason-th...
Rarely discussed but yeah, that's how employee provided health insurance became a thing. It makes no more sense than company-provided housing or groceries or life insurance. You're already at risk of being let go by the employer at any time. Why tack on more risk by trusting the employer to take care of important insurance coverage?
The answer in 1942 would have been, "don't subsidize employer-based health insurance." The answer in 1962 would be have been, "remove the subsidies and let God sort it out." The answer is 2018 is...well, kind of like replacing the engine mid-flight. An entire tumor-like system has grown around various market incentives and it can't just be 'removed' without putting the host at serious risk.
It's kind of a shame it turned out this way because it's given insurance a bad name, unfairly IMO. Insurance is actually something that the market handles reasonably well and it's a product worth buying depending on the situation. Catastrophic insurance can be (and, to some degree, is) fairly priced.
There are many health-related services that make no sense to be covered by insurance, though. Doctor visits, routine procedures, pregnancy - it doesn't make sense to insure oneself against any of those events. Rather, they should either be paid for out of pocket or a single payer system if you like.
The answer in 1942 would have been, "don't subsidize employer-based health insurance." The answer in 1962 would be have been, "remove the subsidies and let God sort it out." The answer is 2018 is...well, kind of like replacing the engine mid-flight. An entire tumor-like system has grown around various market incentives and it can't just be 'removed' without putting the host at serious risk.
It's kind of a shame it turned out this way because it's given insurance a bad name, unfairly IMO. Insurance is actually something that the market handles reasonably well and it's a product worth buying depending on the situation. Catastrophic insurance can be (and, to some degree, is) fairly priced.
There are many health-related services that make no sense to be covered by insurance, though. Doctor visits, routine procedures, pregnancy - it doesn't make sense to insure oneself against any of those events. Rather, they should either be paid for out of pocket or a single payer system if you like.
> The answer is 2018 is...well, kind of like replacing the engine mid-flight. An entire tumor-like system has grown around various market incentives and it can't just be 'removed' without putting the host at serious risk.
Sure it can; the ACA marketplaces were the first step. If they hadn't been systematically undermined, the next step after they were established and stable would be shifting tax incentives to avoid favouring employer-based insurance, and the final step would be removing employer mandates and maintaining the individual mandate.
The problem is that it's not a cancer, it's an active parasite that protects itself against the host.
Sure it can; the ACA marketplaces were the first step. If they hadn't been systematically undermined, the next step after they were established and stable would be shifting tax incentives to avoid favouring employer-based insurance, and the final step would be removing employer mandates and maintaining the individual mandate.
The problem is that it's not a cancer, it's an active parasite that protects itself against the host.
> The answer in 1962 would be have been, "remove the subsidies and let God sort it out."
Aside from the pointless religious bit, that answer is still the correct one today.
Indeed, if any policy question is answerable via "remove the subsidies" then that answer is the correct one.
"Too big to fail" really means "too big", period.
Aside from the pointless religious bit, that answer is still the correct one today.
Indeed, if any policy question is answerable via "remove the subsidies" then that answer is the correct one.
"Too big to fail" really means "too big", period.
There is this thing called lobbying. The fact that the government mandates something does not automatically mean that it is good. It could be but it does not have to be.
I've heard of lobbying, and didn't suggest government mandates are good (or not). What I thought was is interesting is that at least initially, it was an unintended consequence, nor the result of a mandate or lobbying.
> President Roosevelt signed Executive Order 9250, establishing the Office of Economic Stabilization. This froze wages. Businesses were not allowed to raise pay to attract workers.
Tangent: from where does the president draw the authority to do this?
Tangent: from where does the president draw the authority to do this?
- They really did not see a full studio closure coming so suddenly. Yes, they were aware that they were struggling, but the 25% staff reduction was supposed to keep the studio sustainable.
- They were in the planning stages for an original IP, their new leadership realized too late that expensive IP licenses were unsustainable.
- Their frantic development pace meant that they their engine was a patchwork of features cobbled together over the years, and not enough resources to rework it, despite their audiences stating that they didn't care enough to fix it. This made development a lot more painful than it should have been. They finally ditched it for Unity, but again, much too late.
- They were getting ready to move into a new office building. That's how in the dark everyone at the company was kept.
- All of these actions were caused by incompetent management, their staff was and still is amazingly talented.