Nice read. Makes me excited to build a video game company/be surrounded by creatively driven people.
I've been developing a city builder game "Metropolis 1998" [1] for over 3 years. My life has been constantly pulled in two or more different directions (e.g. creativity/artistic expression vs. logic/software). Most of the time the environments that allow these forces to thrive are incompatible with each other.
Since working on my game, I've been in a happy place where I get to go full throttle on both of those. I've created my own engine and I am designing the game, directing the art, handling sound design, marketing, UI, UX, environment design, etc, etc.
Been following development of this! The game looks great, and the work you've put into the simulation side really seems like it's paying off. If it's not too nosy to ask, how are wishlists etc going?
I'm currently diving deep in making music (EDM), but this comment makes me feel that I might take a crack at creating my own game. Joining logic and creativity like that sounds like fun!
“Early access… usually happens just 1–2 years before release.”
I had a good laugh at this. So many titles have taken money and silently failed or seem to figure they can stay in early access indefinitely. On the plus side early access seems useful to smaller devs that are close to finishing but need a bit more cash and free QA. But is also a bit of a scam the way is it’s used for many others unfortunately. Find a genre with a passionate fanbase, make a prototype, collect some cash and fade away.
Any way, not to suggest it’s a bad writeup as I enjoyed reading about the author's experiences.
I’m always struck by how different the software engineering culture is in the gaming industry compared to the rest of tech. Maybe it’s because games are usually self-contained, end-to-end products, while most SaaS platforms are in a constant state of iteration and never truly "done"?
> Today, it’s absolutely possible to work in GameDev without a deep passion for games, or gaming background.
There is room for a range of people with creative or technical backgrounds, but as someone who likes playing games that are actually good, I hope that there are some people working in game development who do have a deep passion for games. Otherwise you can end up with something that looks and sounds great, has solid performance and responsiveness, runs reliably, and simply isn't fun to play. Or a game that is ruined by aggressive monetization, or is basically a glorified slot machine whose primary purpose to hook "whales".
I found the smaller the studio, the more discouraging the experience can be.
There are certainly some advantages to being in a smaller company, but there are also gigantic downsides. The biggest one being that you have no budget. You are effectively competing with every other solo indie developer with a Unity install and a Steam AppID.
Being in a AAA studio means your impact is substantially reduced, but it also means that the project you are working on would probably have more ambition and excitement around it.
At this point, I'd much rather work on some dirty, boring tooling for the Battlefield team than be responsible for the entire game engine on a 3-man team.
Indies & small shops can release genre-defining titles, but the experience as a developer in this context is statistically very, very bad compared to AAA - even accounting for parties like Microsoft taking a flamethrower to the entire segment.
but the experience as a developer in this context is statistically very, very bad compared to AAA
Which statistics? Almost every article I've read about game development describes AAA game studios as a horror show of workplace exploitation. I seriously doubt this.
The difference is that in the exploitative AAA shop, the company pays salary and benefits. In the exploitative indie shop, "something" will happen that means you are also unpaid and have no recourse because the company either doesn't actually have any money or has pulled a disappearing act and made themselves impossible to reach.
Basically, the reason to sign up for tiny companies with no reputation is to give yourself project experience. But it won't necessarily result in deeper wisdom about the process. It could just mean the boss is overconfident.
Going it alone, the obvious alternative, tends to whip game developers into a self-exploiting mode where they crunch really hard on features or assets, when they actually need to step back, make some painful cuts that throw out months of effort, and refocus their design to have better synergy. The push and pull of a team tends to mitigate those outcomes through earlier interventions, but without financing it's very hard to keep one going.
So, yes, the big companies do have advantages. The upside of the indie space is that it is more in line with the rest of the arts than a corporate career path - it allows the process to be something other than a production built off the back of a market survey. But that means a prerequisite is exposure to the arts and to processes that aren't strictly industrial design. This isn't a well-developed thing in the indie scene since the early influences they are working from all tend to be in the industrial design motif: addictive arcade games, sprawling epic RPGs, etc. Starting from these kinds of premises tends to scope the project incorrectly for the available skills, while simultaneously forgoing alternatives that no company would consider.
AAA these days is not nearly as bad as it once was and smaller teams aren’t magically immune from bad management or workplace exploitation. In particular where studios are scaling after success or larger funding can be a pinch point as the leadership. This is common in startups as well where the founders often expect a similar level of commitment from people with much less equity.
It’s funny, I don’t know anything about the industry but back in around 1999 I was working for a trading firm and we used to love hiring talent out of one of the big game companies - they’d be like “You mean I get paid the same money and I don’t have to sleep in my cubicle?”
In a technical or managerial role your core skills are most important. An online game has "boring" login/account services and web pages, customer service portals, internal tools etc etc, that are very similar to any other web company.
A person with no game experience might be able to break in by simply taking a title demotion for a bit and be competitive.
Nice read. Makes me excited to build a video game company/be surrounded by creatively driven people.
I've been developing a city builder game "Metropolis 1998" [1] for over 3 years. My life has been constantly pulled in two or more different directions (e.g. creativity/artistic expression vs. logic/software). Most of the time the environments that allow these forces to thrive are incompatible with each other.
Since working on my game, I've been in a happy place where I get to go full throttle on both of those. I've created my own engine and I am designing the game, directing the art, handling sound design, marketing, UI, UX, environment design, etc, etc.
[1] https://store.steampowered.com/app/2287430/Metropolis_1998/
My Steam page is perpetually far behind the current state of development: https://x.com/YesboxStudios
I played an incredibly amount of SimCity 2000 and SimCity 3000, and Metropolis 1998 looks *amazing.*
Been following development of this! The game looks great, and the work you've put into the simulation side really seems like it's paying off. If it's not too nosy to ask, how are wishlists etc going?
I'm currently diving deep in making music (EDM), but this comment makes me feel that I might take a crack at creating my own game. Joining logic and creativity like that sounds like fun!
nice work ! like the aesthetic
I am always impressed by what solo devs can achieve.
Oh, that‘s you? I played the demo when it first came out, and really liked, what I saw. Cannot wait for the final version!
Rooting for you, as always!
“Early access… usually happens just 1–2 years before release.”
I had a good laugh at this. So many titles have taken money and silently failed or seem to figure they can stay in early access indefinitely. On the plus side early access seems useful to smaller devs that are close to finishing but need a bit more cash and free QA. But is also a bit of a scam the way is it’s used for many others unfortunately. Find a genre with a passionate fanbase, make a prototype, collect some cash and fade away.
Any way, not to suggest it’s a bad writeup as I enjoyed reading about the author's experiences.
I’m always struck by how different the software engineering culture is in the gaming industry compared to the rest of tech. Maybe it’s because games are usually self-contained, end-to-end products, while most SaaS platforms are in a constant state of iteration and never truly "done"?
> Today, it’s absolutely possible to work in GameDev without a deep passion for games, or gaming background.
There is room for a range of people with creative or technical backgrounds, but as someone who likes playing games that are actually good, I hope that there are some people working in game development who do have a deep passion for games. Otherwise you can end up with something that looks and sounds great, has solid performance and responsiveness, runs reliably, and simply isn't fun to play. Or a game that is ruined by aggressive monetization, or is basically a glorified slot machine whose primary purpose to hook "whales".
I feel that a childhood dream of the author came true, and it is a success, but the prose of reality in a large studio is discouraging.
I found the smaller the studio, the more discouraging the experience can be.
There are certainly some advantages to being in a smaller company, but there are also gigantic downsides. The biggest one being that you have no budget. You are effectively competing with every other solo indie developer with a Unity install and a Steam AppID.
Being in a AAA studio means your impact is substantially reduced, but it also means that the project you are working on would probably have more ambition and excitement around it.
At this point, I'd much rather work on some dirty, boring tooling for the Battlefield team than be responsible for the entire game engine on a 3-man team.
Indies & small shops can release genre-defining titles, but the experience as a developer in this context is statistically very, very bad compared to AAA - even accounting for parties like Microsoft taking a flamethrower to the entire segment.
but the experience as a developer in this context is statistically very, very bad compared to AAA
Which statistics? Almost every article I've read about game development describes AAA game studios as a horror show of workplace exploitation. I seriously doubt this.
The difference is that in the exploitative AAA shop, the company pays salary and benefits. In the exploitative indie shop, "something" will happen that means you are also unpaid and have no recourse because the company either doesn't actually have any money or has pulled a disappearing act and made themselves impossible to reach.
Basically, the reason to sign up for tiny companies with no reputation is to give yourself project experience. But it won't necessarily result in deeper wisdom about the process. It could just mean the boss is overconfident.
Going it alone, the obvious alternative, tends to whip game developers into a self-exploiting mode where they crunch really hard on features or assets, when they actually need to step back, make some painful cuts that throw out months of effort, and refocus their design to have better synergy. The push and pull of a team tends to mitigate those outcomes through earlier interventions, but without financing it's very hard to keep one going.
So, yes, the big companies do have advantages. The upside of the indie space is that it is more in line with the rest of the arts than a corporate career path - it allows the process to be something other than a production built off the back of a market survey. But that means a prerequisite is exposure to the arts and to processes that aren't strictly industrial design. This isn't a well-developed thing in the indie scene since the early influences they are working from all tend to be in the industrial design motif: addictive arcade games, sprawling epic RPGs, etc. Starting from these kinds of premises tends to scope the project incorrectly for the available skills, while simultaneously forgoing alternatives that no company would consider.
AAA these days is not nearly as bad as it once was and smaller teams aren’t magically immune from bad management or workplace exploitation. In particular where studios are scaling after success or larger funding can be a pinch point as the leadership. This is common in startups as well where the founders often expect a similar level of commitment from people with much less equity.
It’s funny, I don’t know anything about the industry but back in around 1999 I was working for a trading firm and we used to love hiring talent out of one of the big game companies - they’d be like “You mean I get paid the same money and I don’t have to sleep in my cubicle?”
In a small studio you either need to have someone with deep pockets funding it or always have your next job lined up for when the money runs out.
Large (and/or profitable) studios can afford to try new game ideas and have them fail and nobody will get fired.
Enjoyable reflection. Resonates with me.
Making games is incredible but also very challenging. That’s part of its appeal. Highly recommended.
> About 3 years ago, I joined a GameDev company, without any prior experience making games or hands-on exposure to this industry.
How is that possible? There was no competition at all?
In a technical or managerial role your core skills are most important. An online game has "boring" login/account services and web pages, customer service portals, internal tools etc etc, that are very similar to any other web company.
A person with no game experience might be able to break in by simply taking a title demotion for a bit and be competitive.
this is surprisingly not that uncommon
Can you elaborate? Depends on the country I guess, but generally any game dev job posting has hundreds of applicants.
I have seen it for entry level game design position for example.
but more generally, people that want to try the game making adventure one way or another is kind of a recurrent theme in the industry.