Payment of Writers

[BryonD]

Does he mean that he thinks fans are buying too much crap? Well, I agree, but are we really saying we wish folks would buy less?

Or does he mean that over-enthusiastic fans are producing too much crap? Should I assume he is referring to the "hobby" publisher?

I can only take this in the most sensible interpretation, which is that he wished that fans were more educated and discriminating in their purchases (presumably, by buying his stuff).


Wulf

Possibly, but I do not find that interpretation any better. If enough fans are buying something to impact the market, then that something is what they want. Which pretty wells makes it not "crap".

A brilliant idea that the market does not want is crap.

Any time you blame your consumers for your under-achievment, you are almost certainly wrong.

Any time you blame your consumers ability to detemine quality for your under-achievment your are completely wrong.

 

[Erik Mona]

I said:
>>>
Crap rates have chased off dozens of talented designers from this business, which I think is a shame. There are plenty of good ones waiting in the wings, but there are plenty of over-enthusiastic fans who continue the cycle of crap products waiting there, too.
>>>

ByronD said:
>>>
Do you really mean this? The fans are to blame?
>>>

No, of course I don't hold the fans to blame. The fans are the consumer. Totally removed from how much a product costs and how much the writer was paid, if the fans don't want your product, you've got serious problems.

I was referring, as Wulf suggested, to "fan" designers, as opposed to folks with lots of design experience. Make no mistake, EVERYONE is a "fan" designer at the beginning of their game design careers. Not everyone is good at it. If there are no experienced freelancers to work on a given project, that project will be written by less experienced authors.

There's no magic power held by industry types that makes them "better" than "untested" designers, but they are probably more likely to hit deadlines, be more familiar with subtle game balance issues, and are likely more polished writers (which in turn requires less editing). The best of them know how to deal with editors and publishers and funnel the sum total of their experience into each product. THAT is the advantage of using experienced authors.

Idea quality doesn't, in my opinion, have much to do with experience. A sheer newbie can come up with ideas that will knock the socks off of similar ideas by established writers.

But since this thread is aimed at publishers and already assumes that the "ideas" in question are interesting to potential buyers, I decided to focus on areas in which paying more for experienced authors can _save_ money by cutting down on editing and development time and can perhaps increase long-term customer satisfaction because the rules are more likely to be balanced than those of a novice designer.

I realize, looking over my original message, that I wasn't being terribly clear. Sorry about that. Hope this makes my point of view a little easier to penetrate.

Thanks,

Erik

 

[Nikchick]

Ok, this is going to sound harsh, but that's the world for you. My customers aren't going to care that you and your family are living in poverty, they want the best bang for their buck. Same goes for a lot of retailers, they don't know you, they don't care.

Now, i'm not contesting the quality of your products, far from it (high, high quality its is), but what i am trying to make clear that the market isn't "We will make it, we will price it, and they will come.". By making 'expensive' products you are only taking a niche in a niche market.

I think the point isn't that the customer should care if I'm living in poverty (although please, if you don't care that *I* am living in poverty, please don't expect me to care if you say you're too poor to afford a book...it cuts both ways). The point is that we shouldn't be expected to run our businesses like a hobby, and that we're not arbitrarily raising the prices of game books.

I'm proud of the stance my company has taken: that we give credit where credit is due, that we pay people as reasonably well as we possibly can, that we add value to the products we produce in as many ways as we can afford to (by using high quality materials, hiring talented professionals, by offering products that give their users pleasure by being clever and pretty as well as utilitarian, by offering previews, samples and enhancements for free on our website), that we offer these things in lieu of "making a buck" by cutting those corners in order to under-price the end product.

I've worked in the game industry for 15 years, and I've seen many companies rise and fall. I'm willing to accept the risk that people aren't going to want what I'm offering. If they don't , I will go out of business, that's the way of the world. But I don't agree that it's a foregone conclusion that our philosphy of business can't work and I'm willing to see it through to the end, charging enough to make a modest living, paying those who work for me as "generously" (if you can call 4 cents a word generous) as I can afford so that they too may earn a modest living. Book of the Righteous has been used as an example in this thread, as if it is an example of a book that is "too expensive" to succeed, but despite the folks who have admitted that it's a book beyond their means here, it remains one of the most successful products Green Ronin has produced in the history of our company.

I'm not bitter that not everyone can afford to buy everything my company produces. I hope others can refrain from being bitter that I'm determined to produce those things in the best manner I can.

Nicole

 

[AaronLoeb]

For instance, programmers at game companies accept wages at about $20-25,000 a year, while programmers at other jobs have a median of around $40,000 a year. I wouldn't consider a job in the game industry for that reason, but many folks do, get burned out after 5 years, and get replaced by a bunch of new faces. It's not ideal, but that's how it works.

(Momentary hijack because too many talented engineers don't work in my industry because of this perception

According to Game Developer Magazine's recent annual salary survey, the average starting salary (this is across the nation, it's much higher in the bay area) for an engineer with less than 2 years of experience in our industry is $49,602. With 2-5 years of experience, it's $56,106. With 6+ years, it's $81,766. The numbers are higher for lead engineers and much higher for technical directors.

While it was true that people were working in computer games at slave wages in the 80s, people put a lot more stock in experience and solid coding practices these days -- and kids fresh out of school with B.S.es in Comp. Sci. aren't taking a lot of 20K jobs anymore.

AJL

(End momentary hijack)

 

[Khan the Warlord]

I'm not bitter that not everyone can afford to buy everything my company produces. I hope others can refrain from being bitter that I'm determined to produce those things in the best manner I can.

Nicole

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

According to Game Developer Magazine's recent annual salary survey, the average starting salary (this is across the nation, it's much higher in the bay area) for an engineer with less than 2 years of experience in our industry is $49,602. With 2-5 years of experience, it's $56,106. With 6+ years, it's $81,766. The numbers are higher for lead engineers and much higher for technical directors.

Hm... That would indicate a sea change in the industry since I last surveyed the industry in 1998. At that time, some engineers at Westwood Studios and I exhcanged data, and I was surprised to see the wide disparity between what I was making and what they were making. To make it worse I was getting stock options while the engineers at Westwood weren't. At LucasArts, most of the engineers were paid even worse. (At one point, a large proportion of LucasArts' customer service staff moved to my company just because of pay the pay issue alone)

It would be great for engineers at game companies to get paid a living wage for a change. Since I had to read code from Blizzard, Westwood, and id (to get their games to work on a foreign network), it was very clear which companies had good engineers, and which relied on long beta cycles to get their products to market at a reasonable quality.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

>>>
But RPGs are such that a decent DM can do a better job than commercial work.
>>>

I strongly, strongly, strongly disagree with this statement. Can a "decent" DM design an adventure that works for her party better than a randomly selected d20 adventure? Sure.

Can the same DM design a set of superhero rules as solidly as Steve Kenson? I suspect not. Can she draw maps as well as Todd Gamble, Chris West, or Rob Lee? I shouldn't think so. Can she whip up a sketch as evocative as a painting by Todd Lockwood? Of course not.

No, and I won't dispute the rules system. Very few DMs, for instance, would come up with their own Epic Level Handbook, or SuperHeroes system. That's why there's a market for d20 Modern, d20 Call of Cthulhu, or d20 Super Heroes. No argument from me there. Though some of the third party supplements are well known for rule-broken-ness, so I have a tendency to ban anything not in the Core Rules.

For adventures, I buy them, and I use them, because I don't have time to develop my own. Again, no argument there. (Though adventures are such that a subscription to Dungeon could conceivably take your party from 1 to 20, so you don't even have to buy very many)

But campaign material? God books? Beyond the first campaign setting, I just don't see what additional needs you have. For instance, I've been running two campaigns in Greyhawk for the last year, and WoTC hasn't provided any additional support. Am I unhappy? Not at all. I simply have no more need of that kind of product.

I've outlined in previous threads last year where I'd be happy to spend my money. It's definitely in ways to save ME time. Unfortunately, I don't see very many products out there that address those needs (aside from pre-made adventures). Most of them require me to burn more time reading a big book and then customizing it to my campaign. If I had time to do that, I wouldn't need to buy anything.

 

[philreed]

While it was true that people were working in computer games at slave wages in the 80s, people put a lot more stock in experience and solid coding practices these days -- and kids fresh out of school with B.S.es in Comp. Sci. aren't taking a lot of 20K jobs anymore.

Exactly. I have several friends in the computer game industry who are working as artists and they make between 60k and 80k/year.

I've never come close to that even in years I did a lot of freelance work in addition to my day job.

 

[AaronLoeb]

Hm... That would indicate a sea change in the industry since I last surveyed the industry in 1998. At that time, some engineers at Westwood Studios and I exhcanged data, and I was surprised to see the wide disparity between what I was making and what they were making. To make it worse I was getting stock options while the engineers at Westwood weren't. At LucasArts, most of the engineers were paid even worse. (At one point, a large proportion of LucasArts' customer service staff moved to my company just because of pay the pay issue alone)

Ah! Well, there's the problem. You just listed the two companies most renowned for underpaying their staff. Westwood has never given points or shares to even its most senior people and Lucas used to rely on the allure of Star Wars to recruit. I don't know about Westwood at this point, but I know Lucas has undergone major changes in recent years (they're publishing the game I'm working on), and they are currently recruiting. I'm told their pay is now highly competitive -- check them out.

You also just listed two publishers. Publishers are notorious for paying less than high-end developers (though shop-job developers pay less than publishers) for their internal teams.

The industry runs a wide gamut. Very talented engineers can make a lot of money in games (the highest listed engineer salary in Game Developer's survey was $300,000) and a full third of engineers in games receive some compensation beyond salary -- points on games, stock, etc. -- for an average additional compensation of $17, 559 per annum.

AJL

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

Ah! Well, there's the problem. You just listed the two companies most renowned for underpaying their staff. Westwood has never given points or shares to even its most senior people and Lucas used to rely on the allure of Star Wars to recruit. I don't know about Westwood at this point, but I know Lucas has undergone major changes in recent years (they're publishing the game I'm working on), and they are currently recruiting. I'm told their pay is now highly competitive -- check them out.

Hm... I'll take your word for it, but I named those two companies because they came to mind right away as being the worst. I also had contacts with EA Canada, Blizzard (the company was proud of hiring former carpenters and training them as programmers!), and Monolith studios (Monolith actually had decent pay scales compared to the others, mostly because I think Microsoft was right next door, but they still weren't exactly competitive with non game industry jobs). I no longer work in the game industry, but my impression was that to make it rich as a game programmer, you needed to in a small design house where you got a cut of the royalties, and then if the game made it big it was like having a record go platinum --- you could live off the royalties as long as the game sold.

In any case, my 3.5 years in close contact with the game industry was valuable (and I joined the company thinking that I might eventually want a career in games), but I left deciding that given the way programmers were treated in the game industry I didn't want a part of it. I'm pleased to see that that has changed.