That’s the entire tech industry. I got in at the tail end of it being full of nerds who were interested in computers. Then jocks and the like found out it pays really well and now it isn’t fun anymore.
Yeah, it was nice as long as it lasted, now it’s all meetings and stupid “agility” (as agile as DPRK is democratic) and measurings of your percieved productivity.
I’m still looking, maybe some c/c++ old legacy system needs a geek somewhere?
+1 to this, I feel like having a ton of money is what corrupts leadership, not necessarily their technical background.
Maybe Spez and Zuck haven’t changed much, but I feel like some others started out as relatively reasonable people who were also technically brilliant, but eventually their companies started doing shitty things and they are both aware and apparently unwilling to stop it.
Perhaps corruption in the Soviet Union is a good example of how even people from normal hard working backgrounds (i.e. not billionaires who have never worked a day in their life) can still be corrupted by power and a lack of accountability.
I’ll add, though, that I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this article: maybe the portion of people passionate about game development (and software in general) has become a lot lower, so now leadership is more likely to be people just looking to maximize income, power, and success, rather than people who want to make the best possible products, or at least work on projects that they are passionate about.
But I did want to agree with the person I originally replied to: just because someone is from a highly technical background and doesn’t seem like some MBA looking to maximize profits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make good decisions.
I am really interested in hearing ideas for how to optimize for the kind of behaviour we want, without encouraging bad behaviour that simply optimizes around whatever incentives exist, sacrificing things that are not always obvious to the consumer.
Like if it turns out that the best way to get quality games was to actually promote people passionate about game development into management… how do you catch people who fake it? Or prevent people who may absolutely love developing games from ending up in development hell and never focusing on prioritizing a usable game, cutting corners where necessary, or possibly only working on the fun parts (e.g. Star Citizen? Or most projects I start for fun :( … )
It is discouraging that the current system… having people review games and just choose not to buy shitty ones clearly doesn’t work, given the state of AAA games right now. And to some extent I feel like this can be applied to democracy and the economy as a whole: the wrong things are being optimized for, to the detriment of important things that are harder to measure objectively.
There are some success stories though, I absolutely love Factorio and its recent expansion. And I think there are lots of other great indie games. Maybe there is nothing to complain about in game development, at least, where supposedly the indie game options are better than ever. Perhaps this post is not a great place to ask this kind of question, but I honestly don’t know where it would be more applicable. I feel like political or economic discussions on the internet (and especially Lemmy) get way too polarized.
That’s the entire tech industry. I got in at the tail end of it being full of nerds who were interested in computers. Then jocks and the like found out it pays really well and now it isn’t fun anymore.
Jocks != Business c suite
What’s a jock if it isn’t the highschool quarterback?
Non usa-ish here
Too many business majors joined game dev teams
Yeah, it was nice as long as it lasted, now it’s all meetings and stupid “agility” (as agile as DPRK is democratic) and measurings of your percieved productivity.
I’m still looking, maybe some c/c++ old legacy system needs a geek somewhere?
Yeah man all those well known jocks like Spez and Zuckerberg sure did a number on tech.
+1 to this, I feel like having a ton of money is what corrupts leadership, not necessarily their technical background.
Maybe Spez and Zuck haven’t changed much, but I feel like some others started out as relatively reasonable people who were also technically brilliant, but eventually their companies started doing shitty things and they are both aware and apparently unwilling to stop it.
Perhaps corruption in the Soviet Union is a good example of how even people from normal hard working backgrounds (i.e. not billionaires who have never worked a day in their life) can still be corrupted by power and a lack of accountability.
I’ll add, though, that I don’t necessarily disagree with the premise of this article: maybe the portion of people passionate about game development (and software in general) has become a lot lower, so now leadership is more likely to be people just looking to maximize income, power, and success, rather than people who want to make the best possible products, or at least work on projects that they are passionate about.
But I did want to agree with the person I originally replied to: just because someone is from a highly technical background and doesn’t seem like some MBA looking to maximize profits, that doesn’t necessarily mean they’ll make good decisions.
I am really interested in hearing ideas for how to optimize for the kind of behaviour we want, without encouraging bad behaviour that simply optimizes around whatever incentives exist, sacrificing things that are not always obvious to the consumer.
Like if it turns out that the best way to get quality games was to actually promote people passionate about game development into management… how do you catch people who fake it? Or prevent people who may absolutely love developing games from ending up in development hell and never focusing on prioritizing a usable game, cutting corners where necessary, or possibly only working on the fun parts (e.g. Star Citizen? Or most projects I start for fun
:(… )It is discouraging that the current system… having people review games and just choose not to buy shitty ones clearly doesn’t work, given the state of AAA games right now. And to some extent I feel like this can be applied to democracy and the economy as a whole: the wrong things are being optimized for, to the detriment of important things that are harder to measure objectively.
There are some success stories though, I absolutely love Factorio and its recent expansion. And I think there are lots of other great indie games. Maybe there is nothing to complain about in game development, at least, where supposedly the indie game options are better than ever. Perhaps this post is not a great place to ask this kind of question, but I honestly don’t know where it would be more applicable. I feel like political or economic discussions on the internet (and especially Lemmy) get way too polarized.
hey mark does ju jitsu and he’s totally really good at it and all the other martial artist guys love hanging out with him
Is he actually good at it or are guys who want to hang out with a billionaire saying he’s good at it?