Game Jobs Megathread: Wear clean underwear to avoid the smellz.

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Game Jobs Megathread: Wear clean underwear to avoid the smellz.

«‹›6 »

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

ExtraNoise posted:

Thanks, Diplomaticus. That last thread title was absolutely cringe-inducing.

Well, this thread title is grammatically cringe-inducing...

# ¿ May 31, 2011 17:42

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 07:59

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Shalinor posted:

I've never seen the mission architect, and would tend to assume that user-facing content creation tools in MMOs are far, far less complex.

The complexity of the software only demonstrates that the user can understand and make use of (often needlessly) complex software. That's undoubtedly an increasingly important skill when dealing with software, but that skill alone makes a designer neither good nor great.

Shalinor posted:

I would similarly be skeptical of someone who applied for a designer position on the strength of their Little Big Planet level, though I know that their tools are at least quite complicated and capable of depth. So I'd be less skeptical, but that question would still be there - "if s/he really wants to make and design games, why on earth haven't they ever tried making or designing a proper game." (unless I happened to be hiring for people to work exclusively in LBP, which is... unlikely)

I've never played LittleBigPlanet (just downloaded it from PSN). However, I'm reasonably certain that designers don't judge other designers on the basis of the tools they've used, at least that's the impression I got from the top designers in the industry. Designers use what tools they must to create games that are fun, and typically, one needs only pencil, paper, and makeshift tokens. What truly matters is that a designer can "find the fun."

"Adventure creation kits" don't automate that process any more than UDK; a designer still needs to use his/her expertise. At Disney in Solana Beach (San Diego), Metaplace (the brainchild of Raph Koster) is the primary toolset. Look up the reviews of Metaplace when the toolset was a consumer-facing web-based platform; it's an enterprise suite of applications now. If I were hiring designers, the top three attributes I'd look for in candidates would be a) the quality of the games produced from design and marketing perspectives, b) experience/proficiency with "our" tools, and c) experience/proficiency with a variety of tools. (By the way, I'd bet that NCsoft looks for designers who have experience with the City of Heroes Mission Architect.)

# ¿ Jun 8, 2011 22:33

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Odddzy posted:

What's a VFG?

Vertical Forward Grip.

# ¿ Jun 19, 2011 01:21

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Just a random OO programming question: why is it a bad idea to think of classes as functions of functions (i.e., functions in which there are more functions)?

# ¿ Jun 22, 2011 04:59

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

The Cheshire Cat posted:

The difference really is that functions are generic input->output operations that can be applied to anything with the right data types, while class methods should only concern the operation of THAT particular class.

See, to me, that just sounds like "classes are functions whose I/O operations can be applied to anything with the right data types within their classes." If that's an unworkable interpretation, I guess I just need more hands-on experience with using classes. (I've been writing procedural PHP, but I'm scheduling some time to learn AS3.)

GetWellGamers posted:

He turns to me and asks with this semi-pained look on his face if he's done anything of any value for the team, since we're in the home stretch and there's not a single jot of his code in the program now that the feature he was working on got cut. He's having this entire existential crisis about the project being late and him feeling like he's been more or less dead weight.

In the movies/TV business, actors often find themselves edited out of a production. I was a costumed background actor playing a fisherman in the pilot of HBO's John from Cincinnati. They had filmed three scenes: in the first, I was clearly visible next to Rebecca De Mornay (Risky Business); in the second, I was next to Jim Beaver (Deadwood, Supernatural); and in the third, I was next to Brian Van Holt (Threshold) and Austin Nichols (One Tree Hill). The director refilmed all of these scenes. I opted to not return, even though I was asked, because I had spent most of my time standing around, listening to old-man Ed O'Neill (Married with Children) flirt with the bikini'd extras.

Not making the cut, so to speak, is just part of the entertainment business. You learn to deal with hard edits and cancellations by moving on, knowing that there will be more projects. In terms of what a producer should do to alleviate the weight of such loss, the idealist in me thinks that a producer should find more work for the talent. "Making of" and "behind-the-scenes" footage are great ways to showcase the process, but successful new projects will yield more, even if they're smaller in scale.

# ¿ Jun 22, 2011 21:08

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Monochrome posted:

I'm torn between politely declining or asking why they're collecting this data.

If you're certain that you won't share that data, decline. If you're not sure, ask about why s/he is collecting that data.

I'd want to know what my former employees have moved on to do, so that I could identify from that qualitative data and other factors any unaddressed retention issues, and if there is positive advancement, I could promote employment at my company as a foundational career opportunity.

If I were interested in offering you a job, I wouldn't tiptoe around the tulips and ask about your price in such a roundabout way, and I certainly wouldn't have an admin do that work. I don't think you have anything to worry about with regard to poaching since that doesn't appear to be the case. Poaching usually happens in a far more direct and brazen manner.

If I were in your position though, I would likely decline to share that information on principle. The rationale for the question should always be included with the question.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 22:41 on Jun 23, 2011

# ¿ Jun 23, 2011 22:38

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

FreakyZoid posted:

I've never heard a single person ever say "oh sure, once I set up my company I just sat around all day doing whatever. Could barely fill an 8 hour day with things to do."

One of the founders in my book said, "You don't have enough things to do when you're starting a company because you're sitting around, waiting for people. That was my experience anyway. Despite being a programmer, I wasn't programming games, so I was bored. I discovered a little wireless phone company in an incubator center which I began helping out with production, prioritizing bugs, testing, and that sort of thing."

But I've never heard of an entrepreneur working only eight hours a day.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2011 19:01

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Sigma-X posted:

No they are barring the door and not letting my buddy into work.

So, Ignition opened an office in Glendale and Gainesville, closed those offices and moved to Austin, and now has closed that office and moved to Marina Del Rey. I don't know what UTV is thinking. They probably don't either.

# ¿ Jun 24, 2011 21:55

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Backov posted:

Also a very strong argument for never working for a company where the founder is involved in day to day operations, like a wannabe "auteur."

At the studio level, founders are almost always involved in day-to-day operations. If you're going to avoid working with any of them because of one man, or allegations about one man, I suppose the doors are perpetually open at EA and Activision.

# ¿ Jun 27, 2011 23:00

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

As long as we're on the topic of alternative publishing models and Halo, [a]list games essentially guarantees marketing spends for games toward that end of the life cycle. The first game supported by the [a]list label is War Inc. Battlezone by LA-based Online Warmongers (see today's press release). [a]list games is a division of Ayzenberg Group, which is the largest independent ad agency serving the interactive entertainment market. Steve Fowler is the general manager and was the man behind the brand identity and launch of Halo at Microsoft. He also works with me on the board of directors at Entertainment Media Council.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2011 05:28

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Fl0yd posted:

Don't put crates in rooms that are bigger than any of the door into that room.

There's a local pizza place called New York Giant Pizza that puts pizzas in boxes that are wider than the entryway. You have to carefully turn the box at an angle to get out. These problems aren't limited to games.

# ¿ Jul 1, 2011 21:49

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

devilmouse posted:

You know you have one of the best AS3 hackers IN THE WORLD sitting like 10 feet from your desk, right?

Who's that?

# ¿ Jul 4, 2011 06:01

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Splaa posted:

I'm [...] not going into games again

"Industry" is defined as "the aggregate of manufacturing or technically productive enterprises in a particular field." The phrase video game industry therefore casts a very wide net. If you derive any income from a video game-related enterprise, you're working "in the industry." You may not be considered a member of the professional community, but that's a different issue entirely. So, since I see and hear these comments every once in awhile, I have a few questions.

First, what do you mean by "not going into games again"? Does that mean you're never going to develop games as part of a commercial pursuit?
Second, why were you working in video games in the first place? Did you just fall into it? Were you working on enterprise applications and just wanted a change of pace?

I ask because there's a commonly held idea that everyone working in the video game industry is "passionate about video games." I often hear people say, "I wouldn't be making games if I weren't passionate." Although I'm sure that everyone has their own idea about what "passionate" means, I'm guessing that there has to be a good number of people who could care less about whether they're working on video games, enterprise applications, or toiletries.

For example, I attended the [a]list summit in Napa last year (keynotes by David Perry and Nolan Bushnell) which was an exclusive 100-person event for the top marketing and business development people in the video game industry. During the presentation segment of the event, Lorne Lanning, Sherry McKenna, and Chris Ulm were seated on my left. On my right were two women who, generally speaking, work in marketing. Everyone received complimentary Nox Specialist headphones. One of the women said I could have her headphones because she doesn't play games. I showed her on the box that the headphones can be used with other devices, too, but that's besides the point. She doesn't play games, she's attending this conference, and... she's part of the process that moves product? I was shocked.

# ¿ Jul 12, 2011 09:12

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

FYI: There is a large group of studio founders on Google+, as well as many more game developers. At this stage of the Facebook-Twitter hybrid's life cycle when most people have very little information coming at them, it shouldn't be too hard for a savvy someone to get a great portfolio in front of the right people.

# ¿ Jul 21, 2011 10:46

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Shalinor posted:

At some point, I suppose I should start fixing the nitpicky load of C's and D's I have, but when my other priorities are things like "rewrite the entire rendering system to not blow goat cheese," it seems like... just maaaaybe... that's more important than an isolated texture seam.

Sounds like your testers are doing their jobs. Who's not?

# ¿ Jul 23, 2011 05:11

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

Game Jobs Megathread #3: No, working at Gamestop is NOT "in the industry."

This is false. An industry is a commercial ecosystem -- economic inputs and outputs. GameStop is a retailer, otherwise known as a distributor. Distribution is very much a part of the business of video games. As such, if you work at GameStop, you work in the retailing segment of the industry. The phrase "in the industry" does not strictly mean that you work at either a developer or a publisher. The phrase "in the industry" does not strictly mean that you only develop or publish AAA games. The phrase "in the industry" also does not strictly mean that you are an artist, designer, programmer, musician, or other creative professional. Such ideas are actually quite harmful to the professional community.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2011 20:58

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Sigma-X posted:

I am curious as to what harm you see coming from a "working at Gamestop isn't part of the industry" opinion.

The Society for Cardiothoracic Surgery in the UK recently released a report in which the organization stated, "The good public standing of the British medical profession has tended to obscure the fact that over a long period of time it, perversely, has been prepared to tolerate some very poor practice from a minority of its members through a misplaced sense of collegiality (ie, we must all stick together) and dated ideas of professional autonomy."

Exclusionist club cultures emerge in every field all around the world. Some occurrences are clearly more serious than others; however, in every field, insider-outsider divisions encourage reinvention and groupthink. Club cultures encumber diversity and inclusiveness, thereby heightening barriers to entry. As a result, they are detrimental to creativity, innovation, and effective decision-making. The video game industry is a severe case. Workforce diversity is one of the major challenges that my association will be tackling.

Maide posted:

And my cousin is in the gaming industry because he works as a cashier at wallmart. He should put that on his resume; I can see that going well.

Wal-Mart is a chain of department stores. Merely because a store sells a portion of its goods that were produced by a specific industry does not mean that store is a member of that specific industry. GameStop, however, sells only (or a vast majority) of goods produced by the game industry. Game stores, retail stores, book stores, etc., are all distribution channels for specific industries. Also, your cousin would be working in the gaming industry if he worked at a casino.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 22:28 on Jul 28, 2011

# ¿ Jul 28, 2011 22:21

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

The Cheshire Cat posted:

but even though Gamestop sells mostly games, it's more a part of the "retail" industry than the "games" industry. I mean if you want to include distribution, then shouldn't all the people who work in factories producing DVDs also count? As well as the various delivery people that physically move those game boxes to the stores?

Yes to your questions, but GameStop is within both the retailing industry and the video game industry because GameStop is a chain of specialty stores.

The Cheshire Cat posted:

Think of it from another angle: is Blockbuster video a part of the "film" industry because it mostly rents/sells movies (let's just ignore the fact that they're facing bankruptcy at the moment for the purpose of this example)? Or when you think of the film industry, do you really only think of like, Hollywood, movie stars, directors, etc.?

Yes to the first question. No to the second question.

# ¿ Jul 28, 2011 22:51

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

You don't have anything to do with the creation of that product. You don't have anything to do with the decisions on how that product is distributed. You are simply told "Here, sell this."

So, what you're saying is that in order to work in the video game industry, you must a) make games, b) make decisions, and c) have autonomy? Let that marinate for a bit.

Jaytan posted:

Industry side "distributors" (to use Black Eagle's terminology) are the publishers. The people they sell things to are in the retail industry even if their focus is video games. Similarly the people retailers sell to are (generally) "customers".

Publishers aren't necessarily distributors. There is no rule that states that a company can be a member of only one industry at a time.

Akuma posted:

Paraphrase: "Used game sales are bad!"

Lost opportunities are not real losses.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Jul 29, 2011

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 09:06

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

GetWellGamers posted:

And Black Eagle, knowing a number of recruiters, I will say this: Regardless of what tangential relationship retailers have to the industry (However valid) if you try and use non-corporate retail experience as "Industry experience" on a resume you will be alternately laughed at, pitied, and finally ignored, so I guess regardless of the technical definition, as far as reality is concerned it doesn't matter.

I wrote this in response to Shalinor, but I was holding off on posting here until the topic came back. Thanks.

Well, calling out work experience by industry on a resume doesn't tell an employer anything useful about the job seeker's capabilities; sales, customer service, and store management experience can be very valuable; and effective resumes are tailored to the targeted positions. For a job seeker with point-of-sales experience � which involves logistics (e.g., purchasing, inventory control) in addition to face time with consumers, depending on the level of responsibility � including that experience on a resume when looking for a job as a designer or programmer would probably not be wise because that experience is mostly irrelevant. (However, some employers, especially startups, want creatives who understand the video game business from design to delivery!) Such experience could make a job seeker a worthwhile candidate for marketing, business development, or even top management positions at a variety of companies within and beyond the video game industry because the related skills are transferrable.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 09:28

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Akuma posted:

What does that even mean? If potential customers walk into a store the day after a game releases, and see the same game on two different shelves, only one is slightly cheaper, a lot of them are just going to get the cheaper one. How is that not a loss?

Let's say that you're running an ad agency. After you've bid for a contract, another agency bids for the same contract at a lower price. The prospective client chooses the other agency. Your agency lost an opportunity; you didn't incur any real losses. Now, let's say that you've had a client signed for some time. Another agency courts that client and their business walks away from you. That's a real loss. Missing an opportunity is not the same as losing a customer.

Diplomaticus posted:

That kind of false marketing is common in the retail industry, because that's where those jobs truly lie.

Quibble: "False marketing" is lying, not marketing.

quote:

By your train of logic, an unemployed gamer is "in the industry" if he is whiteknights a game on an internet forum.

No, that would not accord with my reasoning at all.

quote:

If you had two otherwise identical applicants at a gamestop; one of them has worked retail in the mall for 20 years and is familiar with POS/cash registers, store opening/closing procedures but has never played a video game in his life; and the other has been coding game engines for 20 years but has never sold a thing in his life, who do you think is better qualified to be the sales associate (hint: it's the first one.)

Actually, the second candidate would be the most appropriate hire since s/he is effectively an entry-level worker where sales is concerned. The first candidate would be too experienced for a sales associate position, and I'd question the candidate's ability to make smart career decisions. Furthermore, if I hired the first candidate as a sales associate, I'd question my own ability to run a business.

quote:

Store managers have some very minor influence on what comes in, but even then, most of the decisions come from the regional level or higher (at which point, I would begin to start weighing their argument of being "industry".)

Let's return to your exclusionist criteria. You said that in order to work in the video game industry, you must a) make games, b) make decisions, and c) have autonomy. Who qualifies? Managers don't make games, so they're out. Testers don't make decisions, so they're out. Do any of the creatives on the line have autonomy? No, so anyone who works in corporate game development or publishing doesn't qualify under your rules. Who does qualify though? Andy Schatz, Team Meat, and other similarly independent producers. That's quite a small industry that you've defined.

I want to switch gears a bit and ask why. Why do you want to apply a very narrow definition to "video game industry"? Is there a real reason that's meaningful to commercial enterprise? Are you merely being pedantic? Or do you fear that you will somehow become less special as the industry grows and encompasses an increasingly wider range of disciplines and functions? For example, this flow chart illustrates the basic model of the music industry:

What would be your rationale for excluding every component of this process, except for the artist (read: developer) and the label ("marketing/promotion", read: publisher), from the music industry?

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 10:28

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

FreakyZoid posted:

Sure, it could be a more general purpose thread where Gamestop employees bitch and moan about their dumb customers as well. But it isn't that thread.

I disagreed with the claim that retailers aren't part of the industry and declared that statement false. I never said anything about the purpose of this thread.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 10:46

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Akuma posted:

Your example is flawed because the "other agency" isn't just selling a competing product, they're reselling your product and keeping all of the money. We're not talking about customers choosing a competing game; they're choosing your game, but you're not getting paid.

The net effect is the same regardless of who removes the opportunity from the marketplace. If a customer chooses a competitor's title, you missed that opportunity to make a sale. If a customer chooses a used copy of your title, you missed another opportunity to make a sale. You don't incur any losses in either scenario; in fact, you've already gained revenue from the first sales of the resold units.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 11:05

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

Also if I can shift direction a bit -- Black Eagle, what is your organization's position on S.978?

We're not an advocacy group, so we don't take positions. However, I don't think I've yet found myself disagreeing with Hal or his organization's positions. I disagree with S.978 on legal and good business grounds. Copyright infringement is a tort and should always be tortious. We already have a system in place and a body of experts that provide recourse for IP holder. I'd actually like to see 18 U.S.C. � 2319 amended to apply to only a) IP such as a trade secrets and patents and b) infringement where there can be proved an intent to harm the livelihood of an IP holder.

DancingMachine posted:

The point is retailers who sell used games are reducing the pool of money that would otherwise be available to produce future games.

First, the very existence of a retail channel opens new opportunities and thereby expands the size of the total addressable market. Second, you're assuming that used game sales remove opportunities that corporations would otherwise be able to seize. How do you think price-conscious buyers would behave in a hypothetical system where there were no used games? Such buyers would either not make any purchases, which would reduce the profitability of the retail channel and increase the cost of distribution to publishers, or they would buy and return. Returns, in a system where there is no option of reselling used games, would be very costly all around. I think the best responses to used game sales are a) embargoing retailers from the sale of specific used titles until three to six months following the release of those specific titles, and b) investing in customer loyalty programs, which includes DLC and other features that require authentication.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 19:15 on Jul 29, 2011

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 19:11

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

-e- Also didn't realize you guys don't do advocacy. Isn't that the purpose of a trade organization?

Trade associations exist for the mutual benefit of their members. If advocacy as a tactic serves the needs and interests of members, then an association will engage in such activity, but it's not usually the primary role of an association. EMC is more of an AAAS for the business of video games.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 19:52

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

In theory this is true. In practice, however, I find most trade associations to be largely engaged in advocacy, if not as a primary plank then as one of their major initiatives.

There are 27 types of federal tax exemptions, from 501(c)(1) to 501(c)(27), and just as many types of associations. Most trade associations fall under 501(c)(6) (i.e., business leagues, chambers of commerce.) ECA is a 501(c)(4). IGDA is a 501(c)(6). Some associations are incorporated as for-profit entities as well. There is a lot of variety. There are also rules for each exemption regarding the type and extent of advocacy in which associations can engage. To make matters more complex, there are three types of nonprofit corporations in California � nonprofit public benefit, nonprofit mutual benefit, and nonprofit religious benefit � and then there is state tax exemption, all of which have separate rules. (Other states may classify nonprofit entities differently.) Advocacy is generally permitted across the various types of associations because advocacy is a free-speech issue. I'm not persuaded that advocacy without leverage, a transaction or threat, is any more effective than advertising or publicity campaigns. The IRS seems to agree by practically encouraging 501(c)(6) organizations to engage in lobbying activities, but the IRS does mostly disallow participation in political campaigns.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 20:59

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Diplomaticus posted:

It's unusual for me to see organizations that don't have that external advocacy platform as that tends to be a major reason that constituents pay for said membership.

Obviously, I don't agree. Personally, I wouldn't even join a trade association whose primary purpose is "advocacy." If I join an association, I want to know that through either participation or consumption, I can walk away more prepared than ever before for the challenges ahead. I don't think I know anyone who doesn't share that preference. Many associations engage in advocacy because most advocacy is generally an inexpensive means to show members that they care about issues and therefore keep retention up, but most advocacy is also very ineffective.

Furthermore, there is really no sense in every association engaging in advocacy because there are organizations that specialize in grassroots campaigns, promoting legislation, and lobbying. What's more is that some of those organizations don't care about the issues; all they care about is serving their clients, so they're perfect contractors. The nonprofit sector suffers from an epidemic of redundancy. We've got hundreds to thousands of organizations that all do the same things at a very small level. If they would really band together (i.e., merge), they might be able to achieve some of their lofty missions. You know, it's almost like none of their leaders have ever heard of the paradox of choice, the tyranny of small decisions, or the tragedy of the commons...

By the way, there's a good book I think you should read called The Decision to Join: How Individuals Determine Value and Why They Choose to Belong.

# ¿ Jul 29, 2011 22:41

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

On "name dropping": If you're interviewed for, say, a book (as opposed to a job), please feel free to mention the names of the people who mentored you, who you mentored, who was inspiring and loved, who was deeply hated, who played critical roles, etc. Stories that are intended to explore you and your challenges are far more interesting when there is a human context. You don't exist and work in a vacuum, so make sure that you help the interviewer give your story color.

# ¿ Jul 31, 2011 22:42

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Sigma-X posted:

Have any links to these? I am firmly in the zero-respect for games journalism for the reasons you listed, except I can't think of any articles that I would ever call insightful.

I hate to keep jumping on the "your definition isn't broad enough" train, but "game journalism" also includes the trade press. You lot are specifically talking about the consumer press. Brandon Sheffield does great work at Game Developer Magazine and Gamasutra, and I'm not just saying that because he's one of my advisors. Also, N'Gai Croal and Stephen Totilo had/have fairly substantial reputations as journalists on the consumer side; unfortunately, this was frequently the reaction to their work.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 01:05

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

FreakyZoid posted:

Must admit I don't find LinkedIn particularly useful. [...] Yet still I keep my profile up to date. Why is this?

Read Guy Kawasaki's how to improve your LinkedIn profile and Scott Hartsman's stance against recommendations. You only need an up-to-date profile and nothing more. LinkedIn is usually my first stop before I talk to anyone when I'm in the office, before I head to a meeting, and before I attend a conference. LinkedIn also played a significant role when I recruited my board of directors and advisory group. I don't know how useful LinkedIn is to jobseekers, but the company's career-related products comprise its largest business. (I'd also recommend imitating my experience section and Guy's education section.)

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 01:20 on Aug 3, 2011

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 01:16

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

NextTime000 posted:

now I would be the last person to defend Sarah Palin, but I do want to make sure that people are bashing her for the right reasons.

OT: Well, Palin was using "warned" in the sense of "I'm warning you!" However, everything else she said about Revere's ride was clearly inspired by Longfellow's poems and the related illustrations. Artists typically include a bell, or bells, in these illustrations because the bells represent not only an alarm but also liberty. I remember one such illustration in a children's book that depicted Revere riding away from the reader and into the darkness. A string of bells were equipped to his saddle. Revere was carrying a lantern and the light from the lantern was spilling into the darkness. There was a forested area to his left and civilization in the distance. In the actual poem, Revere did climb into the belfry of a church but instead of ringing the bell, he lit a second lamp. It's not really surprising that Palin learned the history of Revere's ride from art and poems. I would bet that most people don't know the real story, but one would expect more from a public official, or in her case, a former public official.

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 18:52

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Odddzy posted:

''give me two qualities and two bad things about you''?

"Shinies! Is this a collection quest?"

"As long as I'm doing your job for you, why don't you pay me?"

You could also interpret "about" as "around" and pick out two bad things in the room, such as the interviewer and the bottle of Scotch in his desk.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 21:08 on Aug 3, 2011

# ¿ Aug 3, 2011 21:06

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

RoboCicero posted:

I know this question has to have been asked a few times, but what hosting company does everyone use? I'm going to spend the rest of the summer moving stuff off my school site and onto a ~real domain name~. Is HostGator good?

Basically, the only web hosting company worth buying from is Rackspace, but you need some experience with Linux or Windows server administration to set up an entry-level server on the Rackspace Cloud. If you need only an online portfolio, go with Carbonmade.

# ¿ Aug 4, 2011 08:38

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

M4rk posted:

Try using a wire service to send out your press release. [...] Yes, videogame PR is difficult, especially for indy stuff. Websites practically fall all over each other to cover AAA titles, but the same can't be said for smaller games.

Of course, before you do that, Shalinor, you should rewrite and restructure the press release according to the standard format. I know you're a fiction writer, but the habits of fiction writers are awful for nonfiction. Scrap the excess and wordiness; focus on the facts. Unlike a novel which a writer purposes to create, the press release is a true medium; it exists only to convey meaningful information as efficiently as possible. Journalists have yesterday deadlines, so your press release should be clearly considerate of their limited availability. Your work should also be competitive, as your press release is just one among many on a journalist's proverbial desk. Press release writing requires precision and brevity to communicate a large amount of critical information in, ideally, less than a half-page.

If that sample is representative of what indies are sending out, I'm not surprised by their lack of coverage. However, even when press releases are written by expensive copywriters such as myself, they're not often picked up. When we announced my book, a few major outlets (of 20 or so targets) printed stories, despite the fact that nearly every major player in the industry is contributing their story. I've become disillusioned with conventional public relations, having learned that most outlets narrowly tailor their publishing strategies to the assumed, and not actual, interests of their readers. When you need to spread the word, skip the middlemen and take your news directly to the people that care. You can only feed the hungry.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2011 20:57

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Shalinor posted:

Bad advice, possibly.

The advice is correct; the interpretation is not. What you wrote would work great for crossposting on a forum or blog, but for publishing as news on a professional outlet's website? Certainly not. The Walt Disney Company and Proctor & Gamble have two of the most powerful marketing machines in the world. Look to their press releases for models.

# ¿ Aug 9, 2011 21:40

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Here's a small selection of press releases that I wrote for clients several years ago:

Note that sometimes clients make changes after you submit the approved final version and those changes are not always carefully implemented.

I remain available as a freelance copywriter, by the way.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 00:57 on Aug 10, 2011

# ¿ Aug 10, 2011 00:53

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

I came upon an article, Learn to Love Networking, that I thought would interest the opportunity/jobseekers here. The article is an interview with Devora Zack, author of Networking for People Who Hate Networking. You'll note that the website is an association leadership website, but the interview is actually not at all specific to the association business. Here's an excerpt:

ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership posted:

A main takeaway from the book is that networking is not a one-size-fits-all activity, and so it's OK to not enjoy attending events or collecting business cards. But those are essentially the unwritten rules of networking. How do you think networking expectations should be modified?

Not only is it OK to not do that, it's better to not do that for most of the general population. It is better to not collect so many cards. Less really is more, which is a huge departure from traditional networking advice, which says more is more and to get out there as much as possible, and to eat all your meals with other people, and to have constant contact.

That works for about 30 percent of the general population. But in fact, to do less and to go deeper works better for most of us. So to collect three business cards at an event and to follow up personally with all those three people is a much stronger networking approach than to collect 30 cards and to follow up with no one. And when you collect 30 cards, you're much less likely to follow up with anyone. Not to mention the fact that you probably won't remember who those people are within a day or two, and frankly they won't remember who you are either because you have more fleeting, superficial connections with them as opposed to deeper, meaningful connections.

Personally, I usually collect up to 10 cards when I attend any event, including GDC. I spend anywhere from 15 minutes to hours with each person.

ASAE & The Center for Association Leadership posted:

You also mention how important it is to have an elevator speech about yourself. How do you create one that is informative and engaging but isn't too self-promoting?

The way to make the speech isn't to talk about how great you are, which introverts are generally uncomfortable with. I always encourage people to talk about what makes them excited, what they love about their work. If I say, "You know what, I am just so good at helping people understand themselves," that's not so compelling to you. If I say instead, "I love my work because I hear from people how they really have changed their lives based on understanding themselves," not only is that me telling you something that's more authentic, but my whole face lights up. My voice gets excited. And if I am excited by something, so are you.

So really telling people what you love, I find, is a really great approach to the foundation of an elevator speech. And another thing to remember is that an elevator speech is not the same thing as saying your bio. So don't tell them facts about yourself. Tell them a quick story or something you care about. Show your passion. Show your interest. Tell them something that's exciting to you. Not what you do but why you do what you do.

I once told a client that he should be prepared at all times with a 15-second introduction. (I also carry my business cards everywhere.) I shared my own introduction and he said, "If you said all of that, I'd want to speak to someone else." I asked, "What would you say if someone asked you, 'What do you do?'" He answered, "I'm a programmer." I asked, "What kind of programmer?" He replied, "A game programmer." I inquired, "...and what does a game programmer do?" He quipped, "I make games. It's technical." I said, "Well, I want to talk to someone else who can make better use of this time."

This is an excerpt from another book. The title is in the quote.

How to Talk to Anyone by Leil Lowndes posted:

I still harbor painful recollections of being tongue-tied when confronted by naked job flashers. Like the time a fellow at a dinner party told me, "I'm a nuclear scientist." My weak "Oh, that must be fascinating" reduced me to a mental molecule in his eyes. The chap on my other side announced, "I'm in industrial abrasives," and then paused, waiting for me to be impressed. My "Well, er, golly, you must have to be a shrewd judge of character to be in industrial abrasives" didn't fly either. We three sat in silence the rest of the meal.

Just last month a new acquaintance bragged, "I'm planning to teach Tibetan Buddhism at Truckee Meadows Community College," and then clammed up. I knew less about Truckee Meadows than I did about Tibetan Buddhism. Whenever people ask you what you do, give them some mouth-to-ear resuscitation so they can catch their breath and say something.

# ¿ Aug 10, 2011 07:12

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

These quotes come from someone who founded a AAA studio whose console games defined an era, that everyone loves and looks up to, and is still operating today and winning many prestigious awards.

quote:

As a general statement, I do not believe that it is possible to start a AAA console game developer in 2010. There will not be a new team creating the next Call of Duty. That door is closed. If anything, the number of teams will shrink in the next 5 years, rather than expand. Having said that, there are incredible opportunities to be had. In the time it takes to make a sequel to Grand Theft Auto, Zynga went from zero to 100 million monthly active users and billions in valuation.

I also asked that same individual about the definition of AAA.

quote:

AAA is cutting edge. It is the games that push the envelope of technology. So in 1985, one guy could make the most technologically advanced game out there. Now, he can't make the main character alone.

(I've not attached a name because both quotes are directly from e-mails. Technically, both statements are in my book, but they're worded very differently.)

Carfax and others define AAA as a game project whose budget is greater than some amount of money, but that's a very loose definition and, strictly speaking, budget-defined "AAA" loses its meaning when applied to, for example, technologically advanced games that reuse assets or which are otherwise conservatively and effectively managed.

# ¿ Aug 11, 2011 05:56

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

Carfax Report posted:

While I appreciate the input and think its interesting, and it's great to have others' experience to draw on, I'd like to hear more of your own opinions drawn from your own work experience.

~~This sounds exceedingly sarcastic. Is this an attempt at a slight? I thought I'd ask before returning fire (i.e., ignoring you.)~~ I don't develop or publish games, so I can't speak from firsthand experience. What I know is how to start, lead, and grow organizations. That's my passion. Where I lack expertise, I let others speak while I listen. Talking to business leaders, learning from them, and then sharing their insights, sometimes coloring them from my perspective, wherever I can are simply what I do as an author and associateur.

Carfax Report posted:

Responding to your comments, though, reusing assets means what? If you mean something like a Dead Rising Case 0, which turned a profit, I would class that game as profit-padding DLC, because it's categorized within the ROI of Dead Rising 2's asset base.

What is asset-and-technology reuse is illustrated by the difference between Fallout: New Vegas and Alpha Protocol. With the understanding that Bethesda Softworks isn't open with its financials and so making the comparison hypothetical, Fallout: New Vegas most likely cost less to produce than Fallout 3 because Obsidian Entertainment had the advantage of using prebuilt assets and technology.

Carfax Report posted:

Conservative management of a console title's development may help bring it closer to the black, but other industry trends fight against its desire for profitability. For example, let's say we use Unreal instead of building a custom engine. Now the profit margin is shaved from 30% to 25%. That 25% needs to cover not only development, but marketing and overhead. It's not enough, hence the string of publisher losses in the last two years.

The formula isn't that simple. Obsidian developed Alpha Protocol using Unreal Engine 3, but the studio didn't adequately account for the challenges of developing an RPG with that technology. Obsidian created levels, gameplay, and content before the systems were in place to use those assets. In Feargus Urquhart's words, "They could create levels that functioned, but they functioned for a game like Gears of War and not what we were ultimately trying to create." These setbacks obviously led to delays, higher costs, and more publisher interaction. Soon after release, Sega pulled the plug on any opportunity to extend Alpha Protocol or create a franchise. You're looking for a pattern in the overall picture, but you need to narrow in on the individual elements that affect the bottom line if you want to understand the why.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 09:15 on Aug 11, 2011

# ¿ Aug 11, 2011 08:27

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 07:59

Adraeus: Jan 25, 2008; by Y Kant Ozma Post

I edited my post above yet again. Habits of a tweaker, sorry.

Carfax Report posted:

I agree that, in the case of Fallout 3 to New Vegas, sequels can have less dev time and cost if they reuse assets properly. We've become an industry of sequels, so this is coming true.

Would you share my concern, then for the risks of new IP development?

There was a short period during the early years where sequels and franchises were unheard of in the game industry; however, that was a very short period. This industry has been one of sequels and franchises since at least the early 1980s. Franchises are absolutely vital to the sustainability and growth of developers and publishers alike. There are many "indie" developers who develop single-title games exclusively, and they're winning awards, but they're not growing beyond one- or two-man operations.

I'm not sure what you mean by tying this thread with the risks of (or to?) new IP. New IP is always a gamble, but it's a necessary risk. When you don't risk new IP, you risk your company instead because markets are moving targets and your competitors won't be as content with your position. I don't think the franchise focus has negatively impacted the pursuit of original IP in general. If anything, creators have started thinking, "How can I turn my original IP into a series?" That's good business and it's certainly not bad for the fans.

Carfax Report posted:

It's a fair point that you need to understand individual elements, but does that disagree with the point about risk in game development being too high to sustain today's level of big budget console development?

One topic that appears in many of my interviews is "technology vs. game design." In my opinion, technology drives budgets, not game design. If you're using the latest technology, you need to hire people that can make efficient use of that technology, or increase spending for training. Using the latest technology also means you need to spend more on hardware, software licenses, support, etc. I'm looking for a word, but it's on the tip-of-my-tongue. I'll use an analogy instead.

The point of impact is the direct cost of the technology, but the rest of the crater represents the associated costs. The latest technology produces a large crater. You need a big budget to fill that crater. Here's the rub though: you don't need the latest technology to produce profitable properties. And you don't even need technology at all to achieve annoying alliterations!

Back in 2006, Frank N. Magid & Associates developed a report for the MI6 Game Marketing Conference. I used that report to write a brief called "Value Innovation for Video Games" in which I charted the opportunities in games at the time, based on what consumers looked to the least to make purchase decisions. As expected, graphics seemed to be what consumers valued the most. That's what was self-reported as critical. Connectivity had very low demand. What we've seen today is that, no, connectivity actually has very high demand and the demand for top-tier graphics is much, much lower.

I found what I wrote way back then, so I think I can let that document conclude for me. (I don't have all of the charts though anymore. Sorry. The above chart actually looked more like the Hertzsprung�Russell diagram when I was done.)

Black Eagle posted:

Value Innovation for Video Games
By Morgan Ramsay, chief brand architect at Heretic

8/15/2007

At the 2006 MI6 Game Marketing Conference, Frank N. Magid & Associates published the results of a study into the game purchase process from a consumer's perspective. The research suggests graphics, price, gameplay, and features are the characteristics of games considered most influential in the process. The research also suggests consumers are least influenced by incremental and radical innovation, franchise authenticity, and the corporate brands of the associated publishers and developers.

Following the panel discussion "What Makes A Next-Gen Game?" produced in March 2007 by International Game Developers Association, San Diego, in association with Qualcomm, Rockstar Games, and High Moon Studios, we determined the attributes that define the "next generation" of video games are precisely what consumers have learned to expect: bigger environments, better graphics, and more of the same old games.

Using data from the Magid study, we created a value curve that correlates the research to the discussion, illustrating the expectations of consumers that producers of video games seek to satisfy. The disparity between the most and least influential characteristics of games indicates that the resources spent on graphics innovation (i.e., technology used for ultrarealistic visuals) are disproportionate to the investment in the corporate brands and people behind the curtains.

Fixed and variable costs of graphics innovation surmount all costs associated with other aspects of a video game. Those costs, which include engine and software licensing, platform development hardware, specialized training, staffing, and technical support, can rival the minimum annual production cost of games for next-generation platforms.

Because graphics innovation is costly to new product development, consumers suffer a premium for video games, a premium three times more than the price of a new movie DVD, four times more than the price of a new music CD, and up to ten times more than the price of a New York Times Best Seller. With the combined price of a new platform and game, consumers also face higher minimum barriers to entry at between US$300 and $600, or $1,000+ for subscription-driven online games, excluding the costs of a display, peripherals, and Internet services. The luxury of interactive entertainment is more expensive than all other entertainment media combined!

Regardless of the costs to both developers and consumers, most developers, particularly those involved with developing console games, continue to focus on graphics innovation. This persistence is driven by the industry tradition of innovating graphics technology in pursuit of providing players a deeper sense of immersion in the game environment. The results in practice have largely failed to deliver real value to consumers and are partially responsible for the industry�s widely criticized blockbuster business model. Adding insult to injury, only a handful of video games that employ state-of-the-art graphics have been successful.

While reducing investment in graphics innovation without investing in branding results in lesser quality products as developed for and perceived by their target markets, simultaneously evoking an integrated brand experience (i.e., an emotional message communicated at every point of interaction with consumers) eliminates that risk, evolving the value network to more effectively address the heterogenous marketplace.

By challenging and redefining the shape of the value curve for interactive entertainment through integrated branding, organizations capture higher returns on investment. In conjunction with decreasing the cost of new product development, consumer sensitivity to price lessens, enabling organizations to offer significantly lower prices without hindering the perceived value of their products.

Perhaps more important for the long-term health of the industry, the low-price/high-value organization pushes new product development outside the traditional blockbuster model of the entertainment business. Instead of relying on one-hit wonders made possible by massive teams and astronomically extreme financing, these organizations gain more freedom to innovate in the areas of gameplay, features, and social connectivity�all of which should be viewed as opportunities for competitive advantage.

In summary:

The expense of graphics innovation to developers is directly related to the high cost of interactive entertainment to consumers.

Consumers have come to only know and expect high-end graphics from next-generation video games; however, consumers are also concerned with the high prices and lessening value of next-generation video games.

Reducing investment in graphics innovation while expanding brands allows organizations to capture higher returns by offering lower prices and more value.

Branding enables organizations to break from the blockbuster business model, paving the way for nontraditional distribution channels.

Here's Raph Koster's thoughts about my initial analysis (i.e., before I wrote the brief and made charts.) Across the document and link, you should note that I've mentioned public relations, IMC, and branding, which are all usually far less expensive and far more effective than advertising. "Slash the technology and advertising budgets and focus on everything else" would be my general recommendation.

Adraeus fucked around with this message at 10:39 on Aug 11, 2011

# ¿ Aug 11, 2011 10:23

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Video Games > Game Jobs Megathread: Wear clean underwear to avoid the smellz.

«‹›6 »