|
FreakyZoid posted:And if he was whistle blowing I'd agree. But saying 1000+ people are unprofessional because of the behaviour of a tiny subset isn't whistle blowing. Yeah, fair enough. I guess to me it's understood that one is not referring to every employee in a company when they say such things as it is obviously not true of 100% of the people there. On the other hand, we all kind of become representatives of our companies to some degree, and I agree with what GetWell said above. Oh well! Haters gon' hate, etc.
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 06:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Scored me another interview up in Dundee  Tag Games this time for a Junior Art role.
|
|
#
?
Feb 27, 2013 13:07
|
|
|
poo poo. My company is shutting down. This is the second time this happens to me. Not being a US-citizen just makes it so much worse, I can't just get a job somewhere while I look for other stuff.  I'm just going to leave my website here, if anybody is looking for a 2D/3D animator with 2 years experience let me know. https://www.arianimation.com
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 01:03
|
|
|
Just bought my ticket to travel to Newcastle for an interview with Eutechnyx. It costs a lot to spend 12 hours on a train. Still, nice to know some people actually do keep your records on file, I first contacted them when I was previously up there after leaving Reflections. BizarroAzrael fucked around with this message at 02:34 on Feb 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 02:22
|
|
|
Eutechnyx is the only games place I've had an interview and it went terribly. This included my journey This included Only an hour and a half usually for me on the train, but last time the timetables in the station where not updated so I believed the train I took into Darlington would not head straight onto Newcastle. Then I got a Taxi from Newcastle into Gateshead and the driver was a tosser, felt like accusing me of being drunk in an angry way because I was finding it hard to explain exactly where I wanted to be... since I'm not familiar with Gateshead. The nearest landmark I'd seen on Google Earth was a brewery... the dickhead started moving before I'd hardly got out of the car door to. Their offices looked pretty nice. A Sloth fucked around with this message at 02:51 on Feb 28, 2013 |
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 02:40
|
|
|
I visited Eutechnyx as a part of my masters and got to try out their rad Ferrari game. A studio in the shadow of the Gateshead flasher 
|
|
#
?
Feb 28, 2013 03:38
|
|
|
Comrade Flynn posted:
Pretty sure I personally recruited you.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 02:16
|
|
|
CliffyB is going to town on the DLC / Microtransactions things lately. It's a pretty great read no matter which side you're on. He's pro-existence of DLC/MTX and isn't afraid to say it. http://dudehugespeaks.tumblr.com/post/44243746261/nickels-dimes-and-quarters quote:Saying a game has microtransactions is a giant generalization, really, it is an open ended comment. What can you buy? Can you buy a cosmetic hat? Or can I spend a buck to go to the top of the leaderboard? Can I buy a bigger gun? What about gambling? (It’s like saying a game is open world; that could mean GTA, Assassin’s Creed, or heck, even Borderlands.) Which one do you actually mean? Do Zynga’s practices often feel sleazy? Sure. Don’t like it? Don’t play it. Don’t like pay to win? You have the freedom to opt out and not even touch the product.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 19:45
|
|
|
I work on telephone games so I have a vested interest in the IAP business model and can see why it works so well, but at the same time it doesn't really sit right with me just yet. I think it's fine right now, mostly being used for the mobile market on the kind of game most people would consider insignificant and easily put-down-able, a market where you have to be free to get noticed and the only way to recoup costs is through IAP's; but if this were to branch out to the mainstream and become the business model for games then that is where I have a problem. I think games, on the whole, are a meritocracy where everyone enters on a level playing field through their purchase. The spirit of competition is something that keeps a lot of games alive, especially the games that currently feature IAP's. Ok you could say where is the competition in Shadow of the Colossus or Dear Esther or something, but would a game like Clash of Clans or Candy Crush be anything without competitive play? In games prestige can be measured through your success and skill. Take World of Warcraft for example, where you can idle around the fountain in Stormwind for 10 hours a day justifying your subscription, showing off your hard-earned gear. Everyone can get this gear, you just need to play well enough. This differs from the prestige in say Clash of Clans, where if you look at the top player they have the best 'gear', but through purchasing currency to buy it. Is this 'fair' to your average gamer? Does this create a healthy gaming atmosphere? I think a problem with this is that it brings in outside influences in to the game like how much money can you spend. Imagine if in football you could spend real money to widen the other team's goal. Would anyone bother playing any more? I'm not actually sure the answer to this. I think what I'm getting at is I do not like people being able to pay for a straight-up advantage in a game. Lots of people play games purely for escapism or to get the same feeling they would watching a movie or reading a book, but countless others play it for a social and competitive element and I think it's these people who lose out to the IAP business model. I guess the counter argument to this though is that life isn't fair and life is full of places where you can pay to get an advantage. Health, education, legal issues, even going to the cinema has premier seats if you want to be pedantic. Should be stop all this? Of course not (although arguably I think we should stop the first 3 but it's never going to happen). Why should games be any different? Perhaps my argument to that is going back to the competitive element. What is the point in playing a digital game/sport where it doesn't start out even for everyone? Will people tire of this inbalance? I don't know, but I could do with someone paying me some IAP's in the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:34
|
|
|
Game in Scotland is happening next weekend in Dundee. If you're in the land of Scot come on over to Dundee. I will be I say booth, it'll probably just be a table. Fledgling tradeshow power: ACTIVATE.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:40
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:I work on telephone games so I have a vested interest in the IAP business model and can see why it works so well, but at the same time it doesn't really sit right with me just yet. I think it's fine right now, mostly being used for the mobile market on the kind of game most people would consider insignificant and easily put-down-able, a market where you have to be free to get noticed and the only way to recoup costs is through IAP's; but if this were to branch out to the mainstream and become the business model for games then that is where I have a problem. This is interesting feedback on this article, the only real comment I have is your analogy to profesional sports: concerned mom posted:
Video games are an industry, a professional industry. At the professional level, the mainstream sports teams with the largest budget often is the clear leader (Patriots, Yankees, etc.) every year you have a few outliers, just like, in this situation, with P2W games you'll find some free players that are just so good they can stomp all over the people buying advantage. These teams can't spend money to expand goals, or change the rules of the game. They can just buy characters (team members) that have permanent speed and strength boosts.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 20:48
|
|
|
AmazonTony posted:Video games are an industry, a professional industry. At the professional level, the mainstream sports teams with the largest budget often is the clear leader (Patriots, Yankees, etc.) every year you have a few outliers, just like, in this situation, with P2W games you'll find some free players that are just so good they can stomp all over the people buying advantage. These teams can't spend money to expand goals, or change the rules of the game. They can just buy characters (team members) that have permanent speed and strength boosts. Except the NFL uses a pretty stringent salary cap system to curb this kind of financial arms race. You can possibly raise questions over their motivations behind doing so or the effectiveness of its implementation, but maintaining a sense of parity in unquestionably an important part of their brand. It also happens to be something that baseball specifically lacks. I would go so far to say that having pay-to-win mechanics in anything that isn't a single-player game is outright unethical. Their mere existence is poisonous to the industry, and they deserve 100% of the ire that they receive. Unfortunately, companies are starting to realize that being overtly pay-to-win is bad business and are simply getting better at hiding pay-to-win elements behind a veil of probability. In the long run, I expect the real battle to be between the games trying to straddle that grey area and the games that explicitly limit their microtransactions to cosmetic and non-gameplay features. I sincerely hope the latter win, but I'm too cynical to believe it's anywhere close to a given.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 21:27
|
|
|
Phantasmal posted:Except the NFL uses a pretty stringent salary cap system to curb this kind of financial arms race. You can possibly raise questions over their motivations behind doing so or the effectiveness of its implementation, but maintaining a sense of parity in unquestionably an important part of their brand. It also happens to be something that baseball specifically lacks. Good point on NFL/MLB, although (and you acknowledged this) the salary cap is really an exercise in hand waving. Lastly, just to clarify, I don't have a position on whether or not Microtransactions of any kind are inherently good or bad. I play a lot of games that are both free to play with microtrans as well as standard "$X for Y game" transaction and find value in both. I spend ALOT of money on League of Legends, mostly buying gifts for friends at this point and I don't regret any of the skins I've purchased. I choose not to buy things like XP, health and power boosts, and don't play games where buying these things can directly impact my experience. What I mean by this is, I don't care if some dude can get to level 60 in Tera before me while riding a shining golden rainbow horse and waving the sword of one thousand truths, I just want to play the game with my friends, that guy is never going to impact my gameplay and I'm not envious enough of digital swag to be upset that I don't have Rainy the Rainbow horse. The reason I'm emotionally detached from the business practice is because I genuinely believe the market will determine what succeeds and what fails. I personally don't play multiplayer focused games where other players can buy The Sword of One Thousand Truths to kill me in a competitive setting. Companies and games that do microtransaction well (TF2, League of Legends, DOTA 2, etc.) will ultimately succeed, and those that don't will not.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:14
|
|
|
Apple people, how do I make ITC schedule a future world-wide release, so that it will spit out US promocodes (but without the game actually hitting the world-wide market until the specified date)? I just sent out a bunch of NZ-specific promocodes. This is kind of silly. EDIT: Apparently if the app was Canadian, this would "just work." Or so it's looking like. So now I get to swap to Canada, and see if it works then. This is just bizarre. EDIT: Ah, figured it out. Had to set the release date to be the actual release date and set it to worldwide, which pulled it off the NZ store. Only then does it allow worldwide promocode activation. Shalinor fucked around with this message at 01:46 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 22:16
|
|
|
AmazonTony posted:The reason I'm emotionally detached from the business practice is because I genuinely believe the market will determine what succeeds and what fails. Where we differ then is that I don't see markets as some impersonal entity that serves flawlessly as an arbiter of success and failure. Humans create markets, and whether we like it or not we also set their parameters as a society and can manipulate and influence their outcomes as participants. The success of failure of microtransactions in the market depends on the public perception, so when we have these debates we're essentially trying to shift the window with regards to which forms of microtransactions are acceptable, and which ones are unacceptable. Cosmetics are mostly fine. If someone in my Dota match is showing off their brand new set of cosmetic gear then good for him. Unless it's the Meepo set, but I digress. There are problematic cases, like where you're paying a subscription to Blizzard but it feels like every expansion has less impressive pet and mount drops from dungeons and raids but a greatly expanded pet store. That can be a frustrating case for the player because previously those cosmetic features served as gameplay rewards and progression markers, so turning them into microtransactions undermines the status rules of the game. This will most likely be solved by future MMOs dropping the subscription fee entirely for microtransactions, which is a somewhat sad but almost certainly inevitable outcome. A microtransaction that gets a player to level whatever faster than they would otherwise? Seemingly not a big deal, but say you're in a game that revolves heavily around endgame trading. Getting to level x before anyone means you get access to the gear of level x ahead of the curve, which then means that your early trades can command a greater value than trades involving the same item a week later. It's not overtly pay-to-win, but in actuality it's very pay-to-win because the trading section of the game is competitive and a series of small time advantages will add up in the long run. And it's this pay to get easier access to a slight advantage that's really the odious one to me, because it's so hard to stamp out. People will say, "You can do fine without that advantage." But then you're faced with either a scenario where people who have that advantage reliably do 2% better than the 'fine' they would have done otherwise and that 2% ends up being a significant difference, or a case where the advantage was entirely illusory and quite frankly deceptive. I find neither outcome acceptable. So when Cliffy posts his argument, he's trying to convince his audience members microtransactions are perfectly legitimate and influence their performance in the market, and that's perfectly fine. At the same time, I believe we have a duty to discuss which types of microtransactions are not legitimate, rather than hoping that the market will just happen to come to the correct decision. Because yeah, on it's own the market will do a great job stamping out cases of egregious misuse, but the real fight will be between transaction models where the distinction between entirely cosmetic and play-to-win has become blurred.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:35
|
|
|
Yeah I kind of feel like the whole "let the market decide" argument isn't really a good one when people show time and again that they are willing to let the market screw them considerably before they get mad about it. Just look at the whole banking crisis or fuel prices or whatever. People say "if you don't like it don't play it" but for a big proportion of people you'd have to really not like it not to play it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 1, 2013 23:51
|
|
|
concerned mom posted:Yeah I kind of feel like the whole "let the market decide" argument isn't really a good one when people show time and again that they are willing to let the market screw them considerably before they get mad about it. Just look at the whole banking crisis or fuel prices or whatever. People say "if you don't like it don't play it" but for a big proportion of people you'd have to really not like it not to play it. So they say "Don't like it, don't play it", and people continue to play it because it's moderately fun despite the terrible monetization, they then claim it's proof people enjoy being rapaciously plundered for every last cent with obnoxious IAP schemes... 
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:11
|
|
|
Most people can agree about pay 2 win mechanics but where it gets tricky is the gray area where you aren't directly paying for power but instead flexibility - the space where LoL champions and TF2 weapons live. And realistically there are always cases where some champions or weapon combos are more powerful than others, at least situationally, and if those are locked behind a pay or progression wall I can definitely buy the argument that they fall into the pay 2 win category. At the same time I am totally okay with those mechanics and don't think they unbalance their respective games.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:35
|
|
|
Phantasmal posted:I would go so far to say that having pay-to-win mechanics in anything that isn't a single-player game is outright unethical. How do you feel about pay-to-win web games — the original social F2P games to which nobody pays attention because of their historically low DAU? In Prison Struggle, you can buy points, which is currency that you can use to buy weapons and armor to upgrade your prisoner. I think you can also buy boosts that improve your PvP capabilities. Thirteen years ago, there was CashWars, which gave players some number of moves per day to mine for prizes. I remember the grand prize was US$1M, but I don't think anybody ever dug that up. I think you could pay for more moves. In today's parlance, moves would be energy. I designed the UI for two similar games back then: one where you expended moves to steal cars; and one where you expended energy to mine for resources to build your empire.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 00:40
|
|
|
Adraeus posted:How do you feel about pay-to-win web games — the original social F2P games to which nobody pays attention because of their historically low DAU? Coming originally from a very obscure game that fought for a decade to maintain the critical mass necessarily for continued existence, I have a certain sympathy when it comes to tiny competitive games struggling for attention (while in this case also struggling to pay salaries). But that being said I would personally never even consider getting invested in any game with overt pay-to-win. Honestly, I ignored WoW PvP solely because I felt their, entirely in-game, item progression obliterated the idea of an even playing field, so I might be an outlier when it comes to emphasizing minimal barriers to entry. But in general I don't see them as anywhere near the kind of threat that a veiled pay-to-win game out of a major publisher represents. They're more like tiny roadside slot casinos in that they're symptomatic of a broader problem rather than a causative agent. Unless there's a particularly clever variant that I'm just unaware of, their pricing models are just too unlikely to become infectious across the broader spectrum of games. Phantasmal fucked around with this message at 01:12 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 01:02
|
|
|
Aliginge posted:Scored me another interview up in Dundee It is very rare that I would flat out tell someone to steer clear of a studio but I have heard NOTHING but horror stories out of TAG. Sion posted:Game in Scotland is happening next weekend in Dundee. If you're in the land of Scot come on over to Dundee. I will be I want a tshirt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 01:11
|
|
|
Paniolo posted:the space where LoL champions and TF2 weapons live. I love the systems in League of Legends and Planetside 2 and I'm usually the cheapest cheap rear end when it comes to games. If you design around the premise that purchasable weapons and characters are balanced against each other (which they're not usually, but that's a problem with the game's balance and not the monetary system), what you're buying becomes a "way to play" instead of a "way to win". Buying an extra life in a puzzle game is terrible because you're not buying a new way to play, you're buying to compensate for skill. Buying potions or stat increases is terrible because you're paying to do the same thing you've been doing in the same way for longer. But when you buy a new character in LoL, you get to learn that character's abilities and how it functions on a team. When you buy a new gun in P2, you're buying the ability to be more-or-less specialized and change the way you shoot at things. Hell, even when you buy a cosmetic item you're still gaining "benefit" from that item for every moment you or someone else is looking at it. I'm sure I've just reiterated other peoples' points, but in my mind buying the ability to change your game is good, buying the ability to keep doing the same thing is bad.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 01:13
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:It is very rare that I would flat out tell someone to steer clear of a studio but I have heard NOTHING but horror stories out of TAG. We might be able to swing a badge.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 02:55
|
|
|
I'm late to the debate as usual but I'd like to respond to the original article. CliffyB is right to criticize those who complain about IAP's, but he seems to miss the point of why they complain. He tries to break down the difference in status between Valve and EA as if those two companies are interchangeable. Valve has put a lot of effort into pleasing their clients, into being personal and present and delivering good games. They don't exactly have a perfect track record, but their priorities are serving their customers more than making money, which is what sets them apart. They find ways to make money by serving their customers, the goal isn't the revenue itself. Valve's customers understand that and it contributes to Valve's success. I bet a lot of people in this thread could name at least three people who worked at Valve, but most people could name only one at most that works at EA. EA isn't a people to its customers, it's just a faceless publisher. EA doesn't try to build relationships with their customers past their wallets. Thus, when Valve charges $100 for an engagement ring it's a service, when EA charges a dollar for a gun in DS3 it's a ripoff. It's less about how you're charging and more about your reputation and your relationship with your customers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 06:35
|
|
|
His argument also basically boils down to lemmings psychology. "Everyone else is happy jumping off a bridge guys, why aren't you?!?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 06:45
|
|
|
D1Sergo posted:Buying an extra life in a puzzle game is terrible because you're not buying a new way to play, you're buying to compensate for skill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 08:18
|
|
|
Vino posted:Valve has put a lot of effort into pleasing their clients, into being personal and present and delivering good games. Of course, differ people find different things fun. I didn't like TF2 when I played it, so that got no money from me. I liked Clash of Clans though, so that did get money (after about 3 weeks of free play).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
Vino posted:Valve has put a lot of effort into pleasing their clients, into being personal and present and delivering good games. They don't exactly have a perfect track record, but their priorities are serving their customers more than making money, which is what sets them apart. They find ways to make money by serving their customers, the goal isn't the revenue itself. Oh come on. I like Valve just as much as the next person, but this is some pretty heavy projection, and this is exactly what Cliff was talking about. Valve is a business; yes, they work very hard at pleasing their customers, but they are savvy in their realization that customer investment at a loss can create a generous return. But they don't do it out of some sort of altruistic imperative. Therein lies a very big difference between Valve and EA that is partly responsible for their strategies: Valve is a private company. EA is a public one. As a result, Valve has significantly more leeway when it comes to creative ways of generating revenue, especially ones that initially come at a loss. I'll come out and admit that I work for EA, which is probably why I'm reacting to this. Personally, I think that Cliff has made a salient point. It's aggravating to me when I see comments like "EA doesn't try to build relationships with their customers past their wallets" because it's absolutely false. There are many of us that work hard to build the community, but there are times when we seem to be constantly working against preconceptions that some fans already have and frustratingly refuse to let go of. Damned if we do, damned if we don't; it's tiring. I've even grappled with this very post, trying to think of how it's going to be received. Do I reply with passion as a counter-example to the argument made? Or do I keep my mouth shut and let yet another unfair characterization of the company I'm proud to work for slip away? For once, I guess I'm choosing the former.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 11:08
|
|
|
Hazed_blue posted:It's aggravating to me when I see comments like "EA doesn't try to build relationships with their customers past their wallets" because it's absolutely false. There are many of us that work hard to build the community, but there are times when we seem to be constantly working against preconceptions that some fans already have and frustratingly refuse to let go of. Damned if we do, damned if we don't; it's tiring. I think Vino was just stating that the majors don't have great reputations relative to companies like Valve among the gamers who actually care, of which there are actually very few. Frank N. Magid & Associates conducted a study for the MI6 Game Marketing Conference a few years back. They found that 2% of buyers factor the publisher/developer into their purchase decisions (PDF, real pg. 25).
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 11:41
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:It is very rare that I would flat out tell someone to steer clear of a studio but I have heard NOTHING but horror stories out of TAG. Really? I had no problems when I was there, what sort of thing have you heard?
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:01
|
|
|
FreakyZoid posted:Could you explain why less skilled people should inherently get less far in the games they have paid the same amount for as people who spend a lot of time playing? In my example, the less skilled person is paying MORE money for the same content since they are unable to unlock the content through skill. However, in my own personal philosophy I find there is a certain amount of pleasure to be gained in having content forcefully withheld until it has been earned through skill, especially if the challenges presented are in ascending order of difficulty. D1Sergo fucked around with this message at 13:16 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:06
|
|
|
D1Sergo posted:In my example, the less skilled person is paying MORE money for the same content since they are unable to unlock the content through skill. However, in my own personal philosophy I find there is a certain amount of pleasure to be gained in having content forcefully withheld until it has been earned through skill, especially if the challenges presented are in ascending order of difficulty. Whereas in my personal philosophy, I don't much like having to replay the same content/challenge over and over just because I'm poo poo at pressing buttons at the exact moment I'm supposed to. I'm not averse to 'skip this bit' buttons and powerups because I don't put much value into 'being good at games' and am more interested in seeing what happens next. Also, if it's an item of clothing or customisation then I am more than happy to pay a certain amount to have it right now as opposed to having to grind for days/weeks/etc to afford it ingame. gently caress grinding for anything ever.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 13:39
|
|
|
SnafuAl posted:Really? I had no problems when I was there, what sort of thing have you heard? That Farley keeps wages incredibly low by making people feel like they're going to lose their job at any moment and hiring completely inexperienced people straight out of the Uni so they don't know how much they should be getting paid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 14:06
|
|
|
@FreakyZoid: Of course, having a fun game is also a prerequisite to making money. My argument assumes all other things equal.Hazed_blue posted:Oh come on. I like Valve just as much as the next person, but this is some pretty heavy projection, and this is exactly what Cliff was talking about. Valve is a business; yes, they work very hard at pleasing their customers, but they are savvy in their realization that customer investment at a loss can create a generous return. But they don't do it out of some sort of altruistic imperative. I'm sorry Mr. Blue, I gave an unfair generalization of EA as never trying to relate to their customers. You're right, that's not true. I also was an idiot and didn't realize some people here work at EA and probably know a few people who work there. I'm not trying to argue that Valve works at pleasing their customers altruistically, obviously they don't. It's as you said, they see it as an investment that generates return. You and I seem to agree on that. We also agree that EA has much more trouble doing the same thing. It's for many reasons and you specified a few of them. I think we would also agree on the result: Valve has this reputation and EA has that reputation, and so Valve is lauded and EA criminalized for the same actions. (I don't want to get into a debate about why Valve's methods work and EA's don't seem to, I think that's beside the point.) Cliff makes it sound as though all of this exists in a vacuum and EA and Valve are interchangeable, when they're not. I'm not saying that he's wrong though, the gamers are unfair in their criticism. I'm only offering a possible cause for their criticism, and I think it's a sensible one. You shouldn't keep your mouth shut, this is the Internet after all, and despite its reputation, some of us are reasonable.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 15:13
|
|
|
Monster w21 Faces posted:That Farley keeps wages incredibly low by making people feel like they're going to lose their job at any moment I didn't see any of that when I was there, but then that was a couple years ago, and I wasn't there long. Monster w21 Faces posted:and hiring completely inexperienced people straight out of the Uni so they don't know how much they should be getting paid. This however I can't dispute. Seems like most of their staff are fresh out the door of Abertay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 16:04
|
|
|
Hazed_blue posted:It's aggravating to me when I see comments like "EA doesn't try to build relationships with their customers past their wallets" because it's absolutely false. There are many of us that work hard to build the community, but there are times when we seem to be constantly working against preconceptions that some fans already have and frustratingly refuse to let go of. Damned if we do, damned if we don't; it's tiring. I've even grappled with this very post, trying to think of how it's going to be received. Do I reply with passion as a counter-example to the argument made? Or do I keep my mouth shut and let yet another unfair characterization of the company I'm proud to work for slip away? For once, I guess I'm choosing the former. I think that's completely fair to say in regards to EA as a corporate entity. The individuals and even teams may want to build community and a relationship, but in the bigger picture something breaks down. Hell, it's fair to say as a corporate entity EA doesn't care about building relationship with it's employees. And I say that as someone who through recruitment and acquisition has worked for EA three times.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:31
|
|
|
Hughlander posted:I think that's completely fair to say in regards to EA as a corporate entity. The individuals and even teams may want to build community and a relationship, but in the bigger picture something breaks down. Hell, it's fair to say as a corporate entity EA doesn't care about building relationship with it's employees. And I say that as someone who through recruitment and acquisition has worked for EA three times. EA's just one such example. Honestly, they're pretty good for what they are. Their initiatives for driving new IP were nice to see, and they haven't backed entirely off that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Syndicalism, now!
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 17:42
|
|
|
I've made some really huge strides for myself professionally and personally in the past 3.5 years I've worked at Z-East. Yesterday I officially decided against transferring to Z-HQ in San Francisco; I owe it to myself to take my time and find something that feels like a 100% fit, rather than freaking out and potentially making a decision I'd later regret. I'm really proud of myself; I just didn't feel right about the idea of transferring and then immediately ditching for a better opportunity in SF-- if I go out there, it won't be on my former employer's dime. A big part of that decision was the support I got through this thread, in understanding that my skills are valuable, and casting off the feeling of insecurity that I wouldn't be able to find another job in this industry. I'm also not afraid to negotiate salaries, etc, anymore, because I have enough confidence to avoid accepting an inadequately-paying job out of a fit of desperation. I do think that, at some point in my career, the only way up is to own (or co-own) a small studio whose success or failure is largely determined by me. I'm not sure if I'm ready for that yet, so the plan for the next couple years is to work for a company that will let me save a good chunk of money, in addition to affording me with valuable work experience/skills that I can take into my future start up. Frown Town fucked around with this message at 18:06 on Mar 2, 2013 |
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 23:18 |
|
|
Frown Town posted:I do think that, at some point in my career, the only way up is to own (or co-own) a small studio whose success or failure is largely determined by me. I'm not sure if I'm ready for that yet, so the plan for the next couple years is to work for a company that will let me save a good chunk of money, in addition to affording me with valuable work experience/skills that I can take into my future start up. I feel like we're about a year away from another shift, so you may not found a mobile studio, but it's still your best bet. There's a ton of arcane business knowledge you need to succeed in the App Store and equivalent markets, and you'll absorb that just by working at a small house. It'll also get you more into the right mindset, as compared to working for a giant aging Facebook/AAA/etc entity. Hopefully, if and when the market shifts, your small/stable mobile studio will shift along with it - and then you'll be right where you need to be.
|
|
#
?
Mar 2, 2013 18:14
|
|