Game Designers Make $67,000 Per Year?

[Impulse Fire911]

[citation][nom]zingam[/nom]That's probably why the game designs suck so much these days because the designers get the lowest wage. And I think the game designer should be the single most important person on the project he should be a designer and the producer at the same time.[/citation]
well think about it, millions of people have ideas for games but not all of them are good. so a bad designer shouldnt get paid more than the minions doing all the coding and all the artwork. Its easier said than done. He just comes up with story, he doesnt design everything from scratch. But i still think that game developers, designers, and artists should get more than below 100,000. Mw2 sold SOO many copies and how much of that do you think was given to the modelers and programmers, proby like 30 cents. The rest is going to the dushebags working in suits that cheat on their wife with their hot secretary and all they had to do was sign a legal document. Its not fair, but what can you expect.

 

[Zingam]

[citation][nom]brekehan[/nom]Designing as bad as programming? your kidding me. Go ask 20 random strangers about thier "ideas for a good game".They won't shut up. Now, go ask 20 strangers how to implement a multithreaded rendering algorithm using space partioning by way of a quadtree and see how many answers you get.[/citation]

Yeah, yeah! 😀 Having big ideas is not the same as designing a game. I'm in the process of designing a game right now. The constant question is: "Are people going to like that or is it going to suck!" And there is no way to know it, before a release. My partner is doing the game engine and I see he's doing some freaky shit but the end result is a running engine and the users have no idea how many freaky hacks he has employed.
A real designer should have at least idea about programming, art, music and sounds, writing scripts. He should be the most versatile person in the team and the leader or you get the shitty repetitive games you see on the shelves.

 

[Zingam]

[citation][nom]randomizer[/nom]Why pay someone to come up with an outrageous idea for a game that the programmers can't feasibly implement within the development period specified by management? Programmers are the ones left "footing the bill" that the designers leave behind.[/citation]

Coming up with ridiculous idea and DESIGNING something that's simple, effective and that will sell are two different things.

It is the same as having ideas about space ships and sport cars and actually designing them 😉 Or having ideas about business and starting one actually.

I'm old enough to understand the difference between "having great ideas" and having the knowledge and ability to create an idea that will be possible to implement successfully.

 

[mlopinto2k1]

It isn't work if you love what you do. Most designers, coders and animators LOVE what they do and what they make is a bonus. Let's be realistic here. This is just one side of the story, how much people make.

 

[ricin]

This is odd. I've been pulling a six-figure base for the last 6 years, and I'm a game programmer in Austin. I don't wear a suit.

 

[razor512]

The more complex a game engine becomes and the better the graphics get, programming and designing become exponentially harder. so to offer 4-5 hours of game play, they end up making the games repetitive. Every little thing you do in any game, even things that are so minute in the game world that you don't notice it, took a very long time for someone to program that. And when they are done, they often have to make many changes to fit what the manager wants. It is a lot of work and when put with a deadline, you end up with games like crysis in which you only get around 30 minutes of unique gameplay, and the rest being repetitive gameplay just with slightly different scnearios.
This is often bad and adds very little to a game. The problem is that with the new games, if they were to give you a game that is not repetitive, with the current graphical goals and other eye candy, it would take like 10+ years to design a meaningful game with any meaningful re playability.

Remember even though graphics, and game engines are becoming better and more complex, the programmers and other people involved in making it, aren't. So to make better looking games in the same time frame, they need to cut back on something. generally game play as it is the most complicated part of a game as it requires the most work from the designers and programmers

 

[mlopinto2k1]

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom]The more complex a game engine becomes and the better the graphics get, programming and designing become exponentially harder. so to offer 4-5 hours of game play, they end up making the games repetitive. Every little thing you do in any game, even things that are so minute in the game world that you don't notice it, took a very long time for someone to program that. And when they are done, they often have to make many changes to fit what the manager wants. It is a lot of work and when put with a deadline, you end up with games like crysis in which you only get around 30 minutes of unique gameplay, and the rest being repetitive gameplay just with slightly different scnearios.This is often bad and adds very little to a game. The problem is that with the new games, if they were to give you a game that is not repetitive, with the current graphical goals and other eye candy, it would take like 10+ years to design a meaningful game with any meaningful re playability.Remember even though graphics, and game engines are becoming better and more complex, the programmers and other people involved in making it, aren't. So to make better looking games in the same time frame, they need to cut back on something. generally game play as it is the most complicated part of a game as it requires the most work from the designers and programmers[/citation]You are absolutely right. In the end it boils down to how much money that company can make. Some of "least" graphical games I have played are some of the best. If they could only implement that in sweet looking games, the world would be a different place.

 

[killerb255]

Remember...also consider the cost of living in various areas.

In large urban areas, $60,000/year may be borderline poverty level.

Out here in da burbs around St. Louis, MO, $60,000/year is more than enough for a single male or female to live off of and buy a few mid-ticket items every now and then. $90,000/year might be enough for a mid-sized family with kids in grade school. High school might jack that up to $120,000/year simply because of teenagers being teenagers.

Double (or in some cases, triple) all of the above numbers for places like New York, Los Angeles, etc.

It all depends on the cost of living and the interests, hobbies, and money management skills of the person earning the wage.

If someone has a habit of blowing every paycheck on impulse, it doesn't matter how much money that person makes. It'll never be enough. Conversely, those with OCD-like budgets can do a lot with a little money.

 

[borisof007]

Try to keep in mind that it's more than just a salary. It's quality of life, doing what you love, benefits, work place, teamwork, sense of accomplishment once you're done, and much more. All of that, plus your salary would definitely make for a decent living (imo).

 

[Guest]

It amazes me that the fallacy of statements like "the place to start in the gaming industry is with Quality Assurance." is still thrown around. That may have been the case 15 years ago... but QA is NOT the foot in the door it used to be. First off, a lot of developers have subsidized the cost of QA onto the publisher, who would rather outsource QA than do it in-house. Then there's the matter that QA is often looked down upon by developers (probably stemming from the fact that QA's job is to break developers work... adding to an already substantial workload and isn't a good way to get in the good graces of the developers). No... QA is not the way to get your foot in the door. They are the fast-food workers of the game industry, expendable and almost universally looked down upon by most dev-teams.

When I worked at Westwood Studios as a QA tester, we weren't even allowed to talk to the development team unless they talked to us first. Failure to comply with this lead to a complaint to the director of QA (Glenn Sperry), which lead to either a reprimand or termination if the complaint came from one of the high-ranking members of the development team.

There was a time when QA was the foot in the door of the game industry... back when development houses recruited from within for new talent. But that was a long time ago in a different industry. Nowadays if you want to get a foot in the door, you need to have one heck of a portfolio showcasing multi-faceted skills (even if your going for an art position, you need to have proven skills in not just 3D modeling and texturing, you also need to have proven skills in a programming language or scripting language).

Even with a strong portfolio, it may not be enough. Often times the key to opening that door lies in knowing someone inside the development studio, which makes networking at events like PAX or GDC much more important than one might traditionally think. Doesn't matter how strong your portfolio is if it's sitting on someones desk in a stack with everyone else's portfolios. Having a contact inside the studio can go a long way towards getting your portfolio the attention it needs from the right people.

 

[Zingam]

[citation][nom]mlopinto2k1[/nom]You are absolutely right. In the end it boils down to how much money that company can make. Some of "least" graphical games I have played are some of the best. If they could only implement that in sweet looking games, the world would be a different place.[/citation]

no gameplay = no money \customer's money\ It's simple as that

 

[tburns1]

Wow. I would have thought I was making way less than a game programmer. What I program is not nearly as cool, and I'm making way more. Go figure.

 

[thearm]

[citation][nom]serkol[/nom]So the top salary in this industry is $131,000 per year? This is rather sad.[/citation]

Sad? That is great great money. Nothing sad about that to me.

 

[kewlguy53403]

Here in the UK the standard hours of work are 37.5 per week, you contract always states the amount of time you work per week, (the time does not include your lunch breaks because you are not paid for them.

ALL employers now give a contract, it is almost impossible to get employment without one, if you didn't have a contract you might actually have some rights, and no employer wants to risk that.

I don't know about the US but I can guarantee here in the UK all employment is covered by a contract of employment and I presume the same is also in all major US firms also

 

[kewlguy53403]

[citation][nom]anamaniac[/nom]Well here were I work we're still paid by the hour, just everything over the first 8 hours is considered 'unauthorized overtime', and one of our secretaries was just suspended for paying overtime that wasn't unauthorized, and all affected employees just had some negative retro pay (which hurts).I've found employers like to state you signed to do a lot for ridiculous crap when you joined, but I read every single word and just laugh a little inside, thinking, 'I hate my job I hate my job I hate my job'...How about the average salary in the marketing department?[/citation]


In the US your rights as a worker vary from state to state. State law governs your rights as a worker.

 

[fanscale]

Become a wharfie then and go on strike every other week.

 

[kingssman]

Well how much does a game programmer work? Well lets just say I watched a behind the scenes of the making of Gran Turismo... Nice office, has a kitchen, washrooms, showers, a laundry service... They also have curtains under your desk for you to sleep. Why sleep under your desk? Probably because they work so dang much that they never get to go home until their project task is completed.

 

[kingssman]

In other news, other than using big cities as a vessel of marketing and advertising, Building games can be done almost anywhere there's a computer. I'm surprised that these massive companies paying huge bucks in super expensive property in big cities to do game development when they could cut their overhead in half by relocating to the mid-west where property value and standard of living is less. A friend of mine works for EA in LA and his rent on a studio apt is 1k month! if he was to work in central illinois he could get the same apt in a good neighborhood for as little as $300/mo. Plus if EA had a development studio here, they could employ 50 people in an internet connected building for about $2000 a month in lease, vs the 75k month in downtown LA

 

[kewlguy53403]

[citation][nom]kingssman[/nom]In other news, other than using big cities as a vessel of marketing and advertising, Building games can be done almost anywhere there's a computer. I'm surprised that these massive companies paying huge bucks in super expensive property in big cities to do game development when they could cut their overhead in half by relocating to the mid-west where property value and standard of living is less. A friend of mine works for EA in LA and his rent on a studio apt is 1k month! if he was to work in central illinois he could get the same apt in a good neighborhood for as little as $300/mo. Plus if EA had a development studio here, they could employ 50 people in an internet connected building for about $2000 a month in lease, vs the 75k month in downtown LA[/citation]
For a few reasons I'd imagine. 1) The people investing in the endovor live in the locale as do all of the Sr. Executives. 2) Communication is affected when working remote, some deal with this better than others, but it would hurt the production time.

 

[vic20]

[citation][nom]razor512[/nom] you end up with games like crysis[/citation]

Ummmm... Crytek is an ENGINE developer, not a GAME developer. They did not set out to make a great game at all. They set out to create a new engine first, then a game which can showcase the engine capabilities to game developers. It really drives me nuts when people say Crysis looks amazing and the destructable environment and physics is impressive but the story/length/whatever sucked. That was the entire point. They were trying to wooo devs for big licensing dollars. Thats it.

This is exactly what Epic and id do as well. Make an engine that can really use the latest graphics cards ad CPUs then make a game to show it off. These games always usually lack story, depth and length. Sure thy end up selling like hot-cakes, but again, thats not the point. The years and years of licensing money from other devs is.