This is why groups like actors needed a union. There is an endless supply of wide eyed actors out there willing to work for nothing just for the chance of maybe becoming famous one day. The union keeps the big players from taking advantage of this endless supply.
Even with their union, actors make a median salary of around $40k. The top 25% best paid make closer to $60k median.
As a former dev (but I still work games adjacent), I'd never tell someone about the industry without telling them about pay and work hours. But at the same time I feel people who are interested in this are likely somewhat aware of this already, and ultimately experience will be a better teacher than me saying X is better. It's not like kids these days can't google.
----
Ironically enough, google and the like is likely the biggest reason gamedevs don't have unions. Despite the stigma, most devs aren't trapped the same way a fast food worker may be. I've had several friends laid off (including myself) and we then pivot to a "boring job" making more money than we were making before being laid off. few other industries can boast this. Even a similar industry like VFX can't just pivot to a whole other sector of work once they get laid off (after making a movie billions).
Given a situation where labor supply is in excess, one could say "let them work for pennies because they love the craft, i.e. let the company pay them nothing because they're easily replaceable." Or one could say "they should unionize so they can bargain for better salaries, and still do what they love."
I suspect that since game devs still make above the national average for salaries, there's less incentive to unionize and demand wages that actually reflect the value they bring to those multi-billion dollar game publishers. It's like "well 50k-60k is good enough" even though the industry they work for is flush with cash and could easily compensate more if they were made to do so.
80+h weeks will absolutely kill any love or value you can get unless you're also a masochist.
But for anyone working normal hours with normal benefits in a decent environment you are absolutely right. Money can be an excellent goal, but so can working on something you like, or working less to spend more time on something else.
Just never work for a company for free.
> Just never work for a company for free.
Screw you, buddy, I'll do what I want to!
(Okay, my aggressive tone is a joke, but I do actually mean the underlying point. I've worked for free many times, for at least two totally different reasons in different situations, and I'll do it again, and it's ridiculous to say that people should "never" do this. Different people have different goals.)
I’d question the merits of your method if it means working a lot of overtime to make other people rich. Mostly because “experience” extremely rarely has any real value in corporate land where everyone, and I do mean everyone, is replaceable once you zoom out enough to a top management perspective. And any extra time you put in for free is really just you getting taken advantage of.
Now I did specify company, because I’m not against volunteering for NGOs. I still don’t think you should spend 80 hours a week doing it, but by all means volunteer to do things. Help your neighbour build a roof, go join a soup kitchen, knit little hats for newborn babies, whatever you want. That’s not really working for free though, it’s working to better your community.
Putting in overtime, that you are not getting paid for at Coca Cola is not only foolish, it’s downright undermining the foundation of our society. It’s you trading away pieces or your life, so that stock owners and corporate managers can become a little richer, and no, you should not really be free to do that. Exactly because it ruins it for every other worker. Especially in America, where you working 80 hours a week, means you’re quite literally keeping someone else from having a full time job and the access to healthcare it provides, and for what? So the billionaires can billion?
If that was indeed what the parent comment truly meant, would you still disagree with it?
Because I am of the same opinion as you that complete outright rejection of overtime, even if it is only once in forever during a critical time period, is not the move. I am absolutely ok with overtime once in forever and for a great reason. But I am absolutely against overtime being the norm or a regular thing.
Do you reject volunteering for non-profits? What about non-profits that have some paid employees? What about for-profit companies that you believe have a net positive effect on the world? What about jobs that you think are fun, I dunno maybe white water guiding, that happen to be for for-profit non-benevolent companies?
The whole idea of "you shouldn't work if you're not getting paid" is a category error.
If you want to do work, do it. If you're getting paid, great. If you're not getting paid but you want to do it anyway, great. If the only reason you want to do this work is because your current alternatives suck, well, I'm sorry to hear that, but you should still pursue your best alternative, which may be working unpaid overtime.
Mind you, in some cases, it makes sense to say "because I am part of a bargaining collective, I will eschew personally-beneficial options, as part of our collective negotiation strategy". Respect! But that's only sane if you're actually part of a bargaining collective. It is (usually) completely idiotic to imagine that you have solidarity with other people who do not see themselves as having solidarity with you.
All of the above comments are super generic, because moksly made some very generic comments, including "never work for a company for free", and I think moksly's advice, when taken as written, is utterly wrong. Now, specifically in the case of working paid or unpaid overtime, as with any other question about workplace environment or about compensation, the only reasonable thing to do is ask what your alternatives are, both short-term and long-term.
Tell me, if you're against overtime being the norm or a regular thing, what advice would you give to a hypothetical person who has no known alternative employment and a dependent to support, and who knows that their boss could hire others to replace them? Would you honestly say to them "never work for a company for free"? Surely instead you would say "do what you gotta do, and also btw try to find a different job, and also btw good luck buddy I feel for you".
The sentence "never work for a company for free" is utterly wrong-headed.
No, I don't. My reply was in the context of full-time employment, not part-time volunteering for some cause on your own free time whenever you choose to.
"Volunteering" for your employer isn't really volunteering, I hope you realize that.
>The sentence "never work for a company for free" is utterly wrong-headed.
It is about as wrong-headed as saying "I refuse to make extra profit for my employer on my own free time on a regular basis without receiving extra pay in return" is.
Or you could just value things about work apart from salary. No need to shame people for going for not doing for the absolute highest paying job. You can try to do the best you can comp wise, but if you're only chasing money your whole life, it won't lead to much satisfaction and is generally bad advice