Never heard of it.

This is the same problem I mentioned above. When you're hit with something you don't know, you shut down; you don't even try. We're not just dealing with getting you over the hump of getting yourself a decent job, we're also dealing with an attitude problem on your part, one you've either always had or have developed over the years. That kind of thinking isn't going to get you anywhere, and you'll be back here this time next year with the same complaints.

Why not stick it into Google, see what it is, see what it has to offer, and say "thanks for the idea, I'll give that a try" instead? I mean, at least try to make an effort to pull yourself out of this rut.

Do you really think I haven't been trying? It's not that I don't appreciate what any of you are saying, it's just that much of what you all have been saying appears to be the opposite. I don't believe attitude really matters that much. If it was the key to this whole thing, then I don't think I'd be here posting this.

I did google it, and I'm on the sign up page now. It's worth a try.

You seem to make it very personal and also have a hetz against Microsoft. Given your explanations it's easy to call it a sob story but you have to remember that everything is just business, nothing personal.

Maybe you should try and seek out startup companies?

Companies that can't expect to get the veterans right off the bat, companies that doesn't have the infrastructure of a giant, and so forth. This could benefit you a lot to break into the industry. Otherwise you would have to look at options, as mentioned earlier, like making your own company and start that way.

I see little to no difference with startups, as the bars for getting in appear to be just as high.

With this statement you are sort of proving that you have become very biased and jaded.

The world is not so black and white. Try look around on Elance (as mentioned earlier), the Unity Forums, the Unreal Engine Forums, the Gamedev Forums, the IndieDB forums, and the list goes on. You have so many possible job positions and the industry is hurting for programmers (as it always is!). Programmers are usually in high demand, as we tend to find an ocean of differing artists (we had to look for 6 months ourselves to get a programmer).

You also have another option. Try get your hands on for example, Unity or Unreal Engine (both very accessible and pretty easy to get into) and then start building prototype games that centers around one single mechanic or few very simple mechanics. Start gaining knowledge on how these engines work (like for Unreal Engine you get access to ALL source code. Everything!) and then try and extend their frameworks and prove that you are as good a programmer as you say you are. Then build a portfolio of these examples and start seeking out Indie Studios as you are much more likely to get in. Even if you just have to send an unmotivated application.

The world is not so black and white

You're god dang right I'm biased and jaded!!! And I think I have every right to be so. Hence the recent and appropriate avatar change to reflect it.

If they're hurting for programmers so dammed bad, then why haven't they hired me yet? And quite frankly, as I stated earlier, I never want to work for a game company ever again. I'll go ahead and try Elance, since I've never heard of it. Almost everything on CL.org is a bust anyway.

I'll take your advice on other frameworks, but for non gaming frameworks, like Cordova, Ionic, AngularJS, Gulp, Selenium Webdriver, and other things related to web dev. Although I really hate trying to cram in knowledge for the sake of appeasing someone else. I applied for a smaller company that's more at the startup level like you all said, but I have my doubts. I'm sorry, but I'm just not convinced. For me, everything is the god dang same!

Not trying to play the race card, but I am black, and the world is white. So, in a literal sense, it is black and white. And it's still f-ed up.

It's easy to be overly optimistic when you have a job already, have no major obstacles getting one, or have lots of experience to help you find another. At one point, this becomes unavoidable.

Shogun.

It's not nice to put it this way but: Feeling sorry for yourself and bitter about the world will only get you so far, before it turns into permanent bias.

We have currently worked 6 months for no pay whatsoever, because we want to make the game that we are working on right now. This project have been under way for at least a year now, and took many months to actually find people willing to work on this with a promise of future pay. But then again, we are not just making a game. We are making a new company. There are future benefits from this, but as everything else, it's a gamble for all of us.

As mhagain have said though: You have an attitude problem you need to work out first.

Gaining knowledge to appease someone else? It's not about someone else. It's about personal growth and staying on top of your game (no punt intended).

Giving up on working in games because of sour experiences is still not going to get you into making games. It will leave you a broken and bitter man instead, with only bitterness to pass on to others. Only you can make this happen, so start building up a portfolio while you seek jobs. It will go a long way with indie studios.

I have more than enough reason to be pessimistic about this industry, especially since it hasn't been very good to me at all (and upon retrospect, I can't say I've always been good to it either). You might see it as negativity, but to me, it's just being realistic about myself and how the industry sees me.

Since I don't know your situation, or what you can and cannot afford, but my assumption is that you have a means of getting a paycheck or have something to fall back on if this doesn't work out somehow. You have 6 people working towards a common goal, and I hope that you see that goal into reality with a reward of profit that will sustain you into the future to create more great games. I won't expand further on my views, because that is off topic.

If being pessimistic is the same as being negative, then so be it. I'm not one to delude myself into believing something that is exaggerated in order to make myself feel better. Life isn't fair, and it is what it is. And in this industry, "personal growth" is about appeasing someone else, in one way or another. This personal growth is about presenting yourself to potential employers, so what's the difference?

Lastly, who says I'm giving up working in games? I'm just fed up working for someone else in games. Going my own way has made me happier then slaving for someone else with minimal reward/compensation. And thank you for using the exact adjective I was looking for: broken. You couldn't have said it any better than that, (no sarcasm; I'm serious).

Shogun.

I don't believe attitude really matters that much.

Attitude is everything!

And yet, I cannot confirm a single moment where it benefitted me to be "optimistic". :(

It's either I have "it", or I don't (replace 'it' with whatever the employer wants). There is no inbetween.

Shogun

EDIT: Next interview is on Friday @ 2:30pm pacific time.

You can be the most qualified person for the job but if you have the personality of a rock you aren't going to get hired. Judging from your other posts about jobs you come off to me as you entitled to any job you apply for and you are doing them a favor by doing an interview. Whether you realize it or not your attitude is coming through during the interview and people don't want to work with douche bags everyday. I know it sucks to have to keep doing 2+ hour interview after interview and not get hired but it is the game you have to play to get paid. But I can guarantee you that if you keep up your hostility towards the hiring practice then you are never going to get hired.

Something to think about, even getting an interview says that you at least have some chance at the job. Dozens or hundreds of other people didn't even get that chance. You just need to work on your people skills a bit and be the guy that people want to go have a beer with after work and I think you are going to have a much easier time.

To be frank, I worked in compliance testing for Xbox 360, and to say that the majority of my co-workers had the personality of "a rock" is a rather accurate description. I've interviewed with and without a similar attitude and still got a job. I can understand the "I just want to get this over attitude" being against you, but not being realistically pessimistic. Even though I've been told that I was a favourite among candidates interviewing at HTC (no, this was before my current attitude and I sold myself like hobo willing to eat glass for a sandwich I might add), I still didn't get the job because I was considered "too good".

And where are you getting this entitlement thing from? Did I not say that I knew I wasn't always qualified? Not getting every interview is not a problem for me, but continuously getting lied to, misleaded and sometimes downright insulted by hiring managers pisses me off. No other industry has done this to me except IT.

You can be the most optimistic person in the world, and still get thrown under the bus. I used to believe that attitude mattered, but now I see that it doesn't. In my experience, it's always been like this: either you have "it", or you don't. The douche still gets hired, and I've worked with enough to know that already. Even I've been that douchebag, and I still got hired at Amazon. Maybe my definition of a douchebag is different than yours. Not a complete jerk, but I let them know that I don't beat around the bush in or act coy.

Lastly, you're right about having a chance, how ever slim or great it might be. I have yet another interview with an employer that appears to like me so far. People skills are not the problem, it's proving to the screener that I am the perfect or most efficient machine for the job. Being liked is only a bonus that is never a guarantee. Now is a good time to get acquainted with SQL.

Btw, I hate beer.

Shogun

You can be the most optimistic person in the world, and still get thrown under the bus. I used to believe that attitude mattered, but now I see that it doesn't. In my experience, it's always been like this: either you have "it", or you don't. The douche still gets hired, and I've worked with enough to know that already. Even I've been that douchebag, and I still got hired at Amazon. Maybe my definition of a douchebag is different than yours. Not a complete jerk, but I let them know that I don't beat around the bush in or act coy.

I think what the others mean by attitude is: don't be so bitter. If you don't get hired, it might not be because there is a "douche" who talked the interviewers into hiring them. It could be that there simply has been a more suitable (either in skills, or team spirit) candidate who was more convincing.

It really helps if you develop the ability to "not win" and accept that as is and move on.

Should you get a job as a member of a production team, that will be a core skill of yours in a team. There will be leads (producer, lead programmer, lead artist, etc.) who will make decisions. Of course you will be able to make your case and have your opinion heard, but you cannot assume your opinion to always be the "right" one, and even if it is, you need to accept that finally it's the leads who decide and take the responsibility for it.

By the way, in your "outside-of-industry experiences", did you work with a team (of indie developers, for instance?). I do think teamwork is effectively what makes a team productive. Someone with mediocre programming skills but excellent teamwork skills will still create better results than an excellent lone genius programmer.

Fair enough Mr. Sloper. I guess I can't argue with that.

This is a non-gamedev position, and I still have no more interest in working for gamedev companies anymore.

By the way, in your "outside-of-industry experiences", did you work with a team (of indie developers, for instance?). I do think teamwork is effectively what makes a team productive. Someone with mediocre programming skills but excellent teamwork skills will still create better results than an excellent lone genius programmer.

Yeah, but nobody cared about it (Cxbx). In fact, it just confused employers even more, so I removed it.

Now that I've been around the block a little longer, this makes sense.

Also, can you please elaborate on the bolded statement above? Start my own company and taking contracts? I don't quite understand what you mean. This month, I've been putting more work towards self employment, but I still don't understand.

Bluntly put, people get hired for two primary sets of skills: how well they can do the job, and how well they can do the job while in context.

You seem to be hinting that you can do the job just fine (things you've done for yourself probably prove this, such as making an engine in your basement, etc.) but you have yet to prove to an HR that you can get the job done when several stakeholders are actively looking at the project, demanding more visibility with regards to process, level of advancement, etc. You need to be able to demonstrate that you are able to put people at ease by showing them something they understand (progress report) so that they feel like paying actual money even before the job is actually completed.

They also need to know that you can scale up/down the scope of the project based on deadlines and budget concerns. If they want something "faster", it's not just a question of sinking overtime hours in, it's also about making the strategic choices that comes with: accept that this part of the code will be "hacky" because you've discussed with your client and have a thorough understanding of their need, and have come to the conclusion that this part could be "unsafe" (mutually agreed definition of the risks involved). You need to communicate these risks professionally, and be by their side to make these tough choices.

Having your own clients tends to give you much more experience in that regard than an actual day job would require, but oftentimes, it is best to have seen the big picture as it gives you the "why" your manager will insist on asking questions, etc.

Taking contracts, in essence, demonstrates your capability to communicate with clients, which is generally a good sign that you can communicate with team mates and managers as well.

Orymus3, on 13 Jan 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

A carreer plan is your ability to pick jobs in line with what you'd like to do and steer the wheel towards it. If all you have to show for are QA opportunities, it's very hard for an HR to see you as anything else. Have you participated in game jams? Have you take on small contracts (even for shady clients)?
1. Yes, why?
2. Um, yeah. Finding those "small contracts" was hard enough, but yeah.

I can agree with #2. It's tough, therefore you need to "hone" the salesman in you. If you do get a contract that is remotely interesting, you need to come on top, on time and on budget and show them quality work. As much as you can, use contracts as stepping stones: they may not need you for anything else, but they probably know someone.

I'll admit I got very lucky: in my first 6 "real months" as a business owner, I went from working on a shady mobile game to supporting a often-showcased game on steam that has over 1 000 000 sales now. Luck is a big part of it, but I did not "accidentally" stumble upon that occasion.

I wouldn't want to share all my tips and tricks, but a big part of that comes from "where you do" for clients. I've mentioned Elance, but have only done so because a number of people I know have taken contracts from that, but I haven't myself personally. In fact, I haven't used any traditional method to acquire clients: rather, I've went straight to small time developers I've come across through sites like indieDB and others and probed for work that could put me on the map. I've accepted salary cuts (sometimes under 50% of my going rate) just because I knew I could put my name on it and acquire a reputation: It's much better to have worked for peanuts on a AAA than for golden cigars on a game that's totally unheard of.

Orymus3, on 13 Jan 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

Strange. Surely their HR would've kept records of your passing. There was probably more to this ref call than merely confirming your track record...
Oh no, I have to disagree with this one. Like I said, I proved to them that I knew what I was doing and that I had adequate coding skills.

Perhaps they wanted to have someone that would vouch for your "work attitude"...

I know I would :)

Orymus3, on 13 Jan 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

36$/h is ANYTHING BUT appalling. The surprise requirement is generally something that happens when HR need to open up: they have too few likely candidates and need to apply loose criteria to who they call for an interview. I agree that it is frustrating being called to an interview where you actually have no chance of getting the job and just don't know it yet, and I find it a poor HR practice. But again, let me stress, 36$/hr is ANYTHING BUT appalling.

Maybe that's alot on Austria, but in the US (especially on the west coast), that is a piss poor salary offer. A lead developer can make double that, give or take a few dollars. Mid-level on average makes at least $90k/year here. Hell, even a lead SDET makes more money than that!!! Tbh, I'm not too picky about salary at this point, but if they seriously want a lead/senior level employee, they'd better be willing to pay for one. My recruiter said the same thing.

I'm based in Canada actually. Don't worry, I deal often enough with south-western americans to know the gap, but that's a geographical problem: living in the south west is extremely pricey, even by american standards. What I'm saying is that, all things considered, by American standards, 36$/h is something one can live from, regardless of whether it is a "fair" salary. For the record, mid-level, on average here, makes around 30k. Mid-level, on average, in a city 3 hours away from here, makes 50-60k, but the cost of living goes up. Yet, no one in Montreal things 30k is being "poor". It's just a very unfortunate mix between salary and housing rent.

Your recruiter is on your side, they're likely to agree, but someone is eventually going to take that job and think it is fair for them. Now, you may have an idea of how much you're worth, and I won't be criticizing whether your self-evaluation is justified or not, but an attitude of "I won't work at this rate" is a conscious decision that will close many doors and can't be blamed on the HR process. Fair or not, competitive or not, these companies are offering a job that pays the rent in a competitive market, and though it's not ideal, it can be "good enough" for a bit. When you're hunting for experience, any experience is good experience, including being paid half of what you'd be hoping for. Like I've previously said, I've done that before, and by Canadian standards, I'm doing well now (by which I mean my wife doesn't actually need to work for us to break even and raise our two children in a house that is considered large and very close to downtown). These are tactical moves that need to be considered.

Orymus3, on 13 Jan 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:

It most probably is. I've been in Autria (Innsbruck in the mountains and Wien on the flatlands) and this is a very nice and cozy place to live out the rest of your days, but I have no idea about employment there. Shepherd perhaps?
Dunno about shepherd, but I like the idea of living in a communist-style house, living around open fields and mountains, and singing ,,Ha Majd a Nyarunknak Vége'' while playing it on the piano during a nice summer day.

I would say that the communist-style house would clash with the hopes of getting 90k/y. Maybe this is more of an existential crisis you are going through? Anywhere near to 30 perchance?

swiftcoder, on 13 Jan 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

'Orymus3', on 13 Jan 2015 - 09:32 AM, said:
Have you ever considered breaking the 4th wall during problem solving? I'm going to assume that you're ASSUMING that what broke you is the fact the algorithm was not satisfactory, and perhaps that is what they told you, but it is also quite possible that it was lack of communication.

QFE.

Interviewers are not looking for a perfect solution right off the bat. They are trying to see *how* you approach solving problems. If you just get up there and write code, the interviewer has no data about the strategy you used to solve the problem.

Ask clarifying questions to clear up any ambiguity in the problem specification *before* you ever write a line of code on the whiteboard. Talk the interviewer through every step of your thought process - if you are headed in a direction the interviewer doesn't like, they are likely to guide you back to the preferred approach. If you find any further ambiguity while solving the problem, stop and ask more clarifying questions.

And remember, your interviewer is every bit as keen for you to succeed as you are. Interviewing candidates takes up valuable time in an engineer's schedule, and the sooner the position is filled, the sooner he can get back to the actual engineering...

90% disagree for reasons I already stated.

I'll remain anchored to disagreeing with your disagreement if only because I've personally been in the shoes of the "hiring party" a number of occasion and communication has always been my topmost criteria, that along with personality and skill, of course. As a result, I tend not to recommend hiring skilled and communicative individuals if they are too cocky because that can be a team-breaker and I'd rather work with underskilled and introverted individuals than hotshot assholes. That being said, communication does play a strong role during our interviews, and it does so for at least 3 others studios locally (which would account for at least 4/5 of the major opportunities in game IT jobs for this city). This may not be much of a sample, especially when considering radically different geographical situations, but I'd like to think we're not the only ones hiring based on demonstrated communication.