 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
| Home | History | Blogs | Portfolio | FAQ | Contact | Terms Of Use |
 |
|
|
|
Transforming the Games Industry into a Well-Oiled Machine: Smarts, More Questions than Answers, and Change through Choices – Part 6 Go To Part 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 This is part 6 of 6 in my response to the Gamasutra.com opinion piece entitled “Making the Game Industry an Attractive Place to Work,” written by Electronic Arts' current head of European talent acquisition, Matthew Jeffery. Click HERE to read the original article. December 10, 2008 By Eric M. Scharf Smarts It is easy to become fascinated with candidates of higher learning who represent enormous potential, and whom Matthew and others are keen to collect from major, internationally-known universities, through which the games industry can become more “accredited.” It is also easy to become discouraged that these book smart people – otherwise known as academics – will continue to largely bypass the games industry in favor of far more established, mature, and stable businesses (e.g. aerospace, engineering, law, medicine, science, etc.). Academics are as interested in great-and-fun jobs as anyone else. They simply have a more functional standard for great-and-fun. Academics, however, have not always had the greatest of success translating their formal education and formatted communication methods into the informal world of game development . . . specifically and most often with programming. Academics – generally and objectively – expect to go from a fixed school experience into an equally (safe) and laser-focused profession . . . just as an aerospace engineering major would go to Rockwell. Two of my long-time colleagues, in fact, did just that on separate occasions – only to discover that freedom awaited them in the form of higher-paying positions within the games industry. Said positions – to their collective surprise – did not require them to deliver air-tight, incredibly-focused, microcode on a daily basis. They made the tantalizing choice to become game developers which – at first glance – seemed fantastic. Soon after, however, they both began to struggle mightily with policing themselves and delivering on their responsibilities . . . without the heavy-and-familiar hand of structure to guide them. Neither of them ultimately succeeded in breaking from their learned routine – back at Rockwell – of intensely-focused results wrapped in almost suffocating supervision. And where did they end up? Both colleagues were initially rejected as “tainted and unworthy” by Rockwell in their bids to return to familiar, comfortable territory. One eventually was forgiven for “dumbing down his work product for money and fleeting fame." The other was hired on with a similar, lesser-known company . . . where his hybrid experience was actually reasonably celebrated as a benefit to their otherwise hive mindset. My colleagues are but two people out of hundreds – maybe even thousands – of academics who may, indeed, be capable of making a smooth transition into game development: from book smart to street smart. Additionally – people who embody the ultimate combination of brilliant thought and social savvy are oh-so-rare . . . and, naturally, in extremely high-and-costly demand. The fixation with graduates of (much) higher education as near-instant enhancements to the current games industry talent pool is understandable. The moral of the recruitment story, however, remains the same for any responsible recruitment manager. You owe it to your company and your development team(s) to choose wisely the next “shiny thing” or valuable team member. You must always perform reasonably-meticulous due diligence on both the candidate and your own evolving operation for a mutually-beneficial match. A seemingly isolated shortcut – towards adding supreme smarts to your team – can short circuit your success. “Gimme the sparkly! I gotta’ have the sparkly!” – Dom DeLuise as Jeremy in the “Secret of NIMH.” More Questions than Answers While Matthew makes a genuine plea for everyone to rise up and make corrective efforts towards games industry infrastructure – from studio operations and product development – so that the games industry is, indeed, a more attractive place to work . . . at the very best, his message only encourages more questions. Matthew – from his current perch as EA's head of European talent acquisition – is (uniquely) empowered to recommend and even install solutions to the problems he has detailed. A former Chicago-based Creative Director of mine has been known to say to his teams, “I have a lot of problem finders, but I have no problem solvers.” I have been known to say (and continue telling my product development teammates), “You will receive encouragement from me to find development and production problems – wherever they appear. You will receive gratitude from me and your teammates for offering up possible solutions to those problems. Mentioning one without the other – however – is a complete non-starter, unless the problem is something no one has ever witnessed in the history of product development.” There are millions of people – from misunderstood high school dropouts to pre-packaged-and-focused college graduates – who all have a voracious appetite for video games. A good percentage of these millions would donate an important internal organ for the chance to work in the games industry . . . even with all of its procedural warts. An eager-and-willing work force – however untrained – has never been an issue. The issue – specifically – involves how the games industry advertises its opportunities to this work force. It is false and irresponsible to advertise how “great and fun” games industry employment can be without also explaining how much regular, team-oriented, multi-disciplined hard work is included. Games industry representatives – from external recruitment agencies to internal hiring managers – might be surprised at what the truth might render. Real, capable candidates would still step forward – upon learning that the majority of game developers do not spend their days lounging in the middle of the ultimate entertainment crib with disco lights flashing . . . while developing and playing-testing the latest-and-greatest video games of all time. Real, capable candidates would still step forward upon learning that game development is "an attractive place to work" because – rather than just fun and games . . . it is much more about facing the extreme challenges of originality, successful story-telling, incredible solutions to painful usability issues, and the potential magic of being able to engage multiple, international audiences through a single, great digital invention. The games industry still yearns for critical, professional "validation of its greatness" from society – beyond and as far away as possible from its "play thing" origins. Continuing to unreasonably gloss over the true guts of game development will only serve to stymie progress in that direction. If you want real candidates, you need to provide real-and-up-front facts about what is involved in real game development. Some companies – refreshingly – have actually begun to do this with detailed-and-exacting job descriptions (e.g. “If your background does not meet these specific requirements, we will be unable to consider you for this position”). Do not wave the latest eye-popping games industry sales figures at candidates with one hand and tell them not to look behind the red development curtain with the other hand. “MUST BE PASSIONATE ABOUT GAMES” is a meaningless requirement without making sure all interested workforce parties know that – without question – "your passion will be put to the test." The well-suited will respond to such a well-defined mission statement with the same amount of passion the games industry seeks in its employees. The ill-equipped will whither away from a shockingly unexpected reality . . . lest you refuse to pay attention. Anything less than reasonable transparency about the what is necessary to gain entry into the games industry . . . will simply result in more questions than answers. Change through Choices The topsoil workforce issues brought up by Matthew – and further analyzed by me – should not come as a complete surprise for those familiar with the humble beginnings of the games industry. When you choose to create a business model with a meager scope – from a hobby that was never meant to become the worldwide industry it is today – and that business model has been knowingly held together with decades of band-aids . . . the problems detailed in Matthew’s article and my response are to be expected. I am certain it is not lost on anyone that most businesses have historically attempted to break the tiniest of eggs in order to make the most gigantic omelets. It is an individual's or company's right to do this. It is their right to install and utilize whichever legal, operational business practices, and product development standards they so desire . . . to hire who they want, to sign the deals they want, at any time they want, and on and on. It may be their moral obligation to not extinguish the potential of their long-term planning, workforce capability, and product line quality for short-term gains, but it is their right. While it is – indeed – their right to fail through the worst, most uninformed decisions and the most uninspired development of their products . . . it is also their right to succeed, through the most well-timed, reasonably-conceived choices, from the most supportive managers, who inspire the most devoted and talented employees towards developing some of the best products on the market. It must be stated, understood, and remembered that, with the choices you do make – regardless of your rung on the business ladder – you have a reasonable burden of professional obligation to yourself, your teammates, your employees-and-their-dependents, your products, your company, your shareholders, and your future. "Fate waits for no person," and there is an incredible domino effect – in every industry – that begins to pick up steam the very moment an unnecessary shortcut tickles your fancy If you are an employer aiming to make the best products with the best employees, you need to be prepared with a legitimate business plan. You need to be realistic about the personal sacrifice and financial investment you will have to regularly make in order to attract-and-keep the best resources for your company. If you are an employee – pumped up on adrenalin – who thinks “I can do it better,” setting off with a handful of talented-and-trusted colleagues to form an exciting new start-up . . . you have the very same challenges and responsibilities as your former employer. Your collective future – suddenly unburdened by a manager’s choices – is now completely in your hands. Your results will leave you looking like – or no better than – an astute business person, your former boss . . . or someone who should never be allowed to run any business. The business of making games – with no entitlements and no guarantees – is still a business-hatched-from-a-plan, first, and what you make of it, second. I remain a participant in game development – after nearly 18 years in the industry – choosing to think outside the box from within the current "business" model . . . which is the only thing you can do until you have been empowered, or have empowered yourself, to invoke bigger solutions. I do this in order to enhance studio operations and product development experiences for me and my teammates, wherever I have been, wherever I am, and wherever I may go in the future. My motto is “respect the project by respecting your teammates,” as the project only exists on paper without a team . . . and your teammates cannot accomplish their goals without careful-and-willing collaboration with management and each other. Many a famous movie star or professional athlete – all competitors – will tell you: "Getting into the game is one thing . . . but remaining and actually succeeding in the game – again and again – is the real prize." Our past choices – by employer and employee alike – have all contributed to the current state of the games industry. We still have the opportunity to make good on our lip service. We still have the opportunity to make better choices that transform the industry into a much more stable place in which to do successful business – and a more attractive, long-term place in which to work . . . for not only the best-and-brightest future candidates, but the existing workforce as well. We still have the opportunity to make change through choices. The choice is yours to make. Go To Part 1 – 2 – 3 – 4 – 5 – 6 |
