The Game Development Industry in Australia has undergone a major contraction in recent years. Numerous major studios have collapsed, including key players such as Pandemic and Krome, leading to a drastic reduction in the number of potential jobs and a flooding of the labour market with industry professionals. Simultaneously, the first rounds of graduates from a number of games-focused degrees are beginning to enter the work-force. This has the makings of the perfect storm in terms of employment prospects, job conditions and industry skill retention.

So the situation in Australia is pretty dire, as it is. This is especially true for new entrants and those undertaking study at one of the many higher education providers offering games-tailored education, or education in related skills such as animation. There are no short-term solutions to these problems. Independent development will flourish and, eventually, the industry will recover. in the mean-time, however, there are major difficulties facing new entrants and students. This article will attempt to bring light to a couple of these problems for the benefit of graduates and commentators alike.
 

Disclaimer:

In the interests of disclosure, I should provide context for my opinions. I am a new entrant into the industry, having commenced a Bachelor of Games and Interactive Entertainment course at the Queensland University of Technology in 2007. My experience has been less-than-positive, but I shall endeavour to avoid specifics as that is not the purpose of this article. I am also an independent developer, running my own corporation and contracting a number of other developers with whom I have worked

The first difficulty to be addressed by this article is that of education. This sector was addressed recently in an IGN article. Games-Industry education in Australia is years behind North America and Northern Europe amongst education offered in English. The vast majority of courses are cobbled from other offerings, with no qualified staff members and poorly conceived progression. The vast majority of courses allegedly educating students in game-design roles will not address 'Level Design' or 'Scripting', skills found on the requirements of most 'entry-level' positions, if any can so be called.

One institution, which will go un-named, is to appoint an architect as the course coordinator for their Game Development course. This same individual has been quoted by sources as responding to a question about water-fall v. agile development methodologies with the phrase "I'm an architect, I don't know what those are". In one institution petitions have been circulated about staff members.

While these are extreme examples, they are symptomatic of common problems. Educational Institutions are failing to gather an understanding of the industry, the skills involved and graduate outcomes that should be sought. Rather than seeking to employ qualified individuals and consider the course at length, they are keen to press rapidly forward in what is perceived to be a lucrative and highly demanded field of study. The academic mentality of viewing students as components in an academic experiment pervades many such institutions, though this does not seem to impact the fees paid by students.

While this is scathing criticism, students are not without light in the darkness. Whilst not long ago, QANTM's Game Design offering was undeveloped, the cohort graduating this year have expressed (relatively to other instituions) positive sentiments. Inspection of student processes in their capstone project revealed a technical proficiency unseen elsewhere. There remain problems, but QANTM seem to be taking positive steps. As a further positive sign, every Game Design educator at QANTM is highly qualified with relevant degrees and/or significant industry experience.

In addition to staff qualification problems and poor course design, students from numerous institutions have expressed concerns about student welfare issues. Institutions, perhaps due to the aforementioned staff problems, are failing to uphold the same communication and assessment standards witnessed in their other disciplines.

So there are problems, but what needs to be done? Higher Education Providers need to be made aware that they are a service provider. That is their status, and they need to provide a service. More qualified individuals, which will not be hard to find in the flooded labour market, need to be employed in senior roles. This experience will hopefully bring with it a better understanding of the industry and, consequently, improved course design. Additionally, educators should ensure they act ethically when marketing courses to students.

As students, many will tell you the key is to work independently and build a portfolio. This is definitely the key to success. Whether you remain at an educational instituion or otherwise, go beyond what is expected whenever possible. Be aware of the prognosis for the industry, however, and make decisions accordingly. In the mean time, ensure your education provider is held accountable. There are national standards in place and providers fear one thing above almost all others - the media. Act collectively for your best interests, but when you can seek an amicable solution as that degree, while not paramount to your success, certainly doesn't hurt and does open up options.

This brings me to the second main issue I hope to address, which is the industry's relationship with new entrants. This relationship will undoubtedly be strained as the job market fluctuates. New entrants see the mountain before them and are, understandably, concerned. The industry's perspective on new entrants varies, however.

Unemployed professionals in the industry often have a negative perspective on new entrants. New entrants may usurp experienced professionals for some roles, whether it be for long-term growth or simple cost reduction purposes. This is unfortunate and a cause for some friction.

Amongst the employed professionals, there seem to be two perspectives that are most prevalent - the 'human resources' and 'artist' perspectives. These perspectives can be witnessed in advice offered to new entrants in articles such as this one that appeared on IGN recently.

The HR perspective is the one that promotes 'passion', among other virtues. Passion, while certainly important, is often now the feeling gathered from the wording. The meaning often summised is 'desperate' and 'willing to compromise'. This reflects the job market and, while not desirable, is the fact of the situation.

The 'artist' perspective is one that's more interesting. This is the positive feedback you get from designers assuring you that the industry will recover and to 'do what you love'. While admirable, perhaps, in its intentions, it is ultimately self-serving and a little naive. I would offer the following advice to industry professionals and commentators alike in how they address new entrants, in direct reference to the aforementioned IGN article:

I hope I don't offend too many when I say that most of that was placating and self-serving drivel. There are exceptions, not all of which I'll name, but Shainiel and Epona gave some good advice as examples. Most of it, I can say from the position of the target audience, is meaningless.

As new entrants we get words like "passionate" thrown at us all the time, and perhaps it's necessary to say that informing us you look for passion is somewhat pointless. If you're passionate, you don't need to be told and, if you're not, being told isn't going to spark the fire. If I might quote Mr. Dobele:

"Right now, it's obviously going to be very tough for students to get jobs in the established industry. If they're talented and passionate, they'll get work."

That is exactly what I mean. I respect that maybe it was intended to be encouraging, but it's simply not true and is a tad insulting to-boot. I know dozens of talented and passionate people, and that simply doesn't translate to a job. There are many more passionate and talented people with a life-time of experience who can't find employment.

Further-more, there's a lot of self-serving comments we get back from industry professionals and educators alike - "Don't worry, follow your dreams and make what you love", and "The industry'll pick up again, don't fret".

Firstly, at least most of us know the industry will eventually begin recovering. The fact is, however, that recent graduates are in a particularly poor spot. We're competing with literally hundreds of laid-off industry professionals with experience. We're coming out of generally poorly conceived courses and, by the time the industry does recover, will be in competition with hundreds of more graduates with probably improved education. The number of new graduates, for the next few years at least, will far out-number new jobs and the labour market is already over-crowded.

Secondly, telling us to chase our dreams and do what we love is a nice ideal. When it comes from educators, the words are hollow as, generally, the old adage of "those that can't do, teach" can be found quite accurate. When it comes from industry professionals, it's just naive. Independent development is an avenue worthy of examination, to be sure. I, personally, am pursuing that option. The fact is, however, that life isn't that easy. New graduates are generally cash-strapped, mired in debt and understandably nervous of starting a business venture in a field in which they're entirely inexperienced. Furthermore, while a studio can easily afford a new Mac, iPhone and software licenses for a suite of development solutions from Photoshop to engine licenses, students often won't have that option.

Still, some of us make do and go for it. Anyone here should know the odds of success, however. It's all well and good to point to successes, but who remembers the thousands of failures? Those that say "go for it" know well that "going for it" will, in most cases, lead nowhere with money and time invested that may not be affordable. Sure, encourage people to pursue independent development, but don't be so patronising as to suggest it's a casual decision to be made on a quiet Summer's afternoon. Especially so if you want people to maintain their skills and build their portfolios for the next few years as the industry recovers.

I may be a little bitter, but I am passionate and I'm going to "go and make [my] own world.", as are others I know. We just don't need those sitting in the comfort of a full-time job and financial security advising us to take risks with our own. Maybe before you speak those hollow words, put yourself in the position of having $60 to your name and a family to support and see if you would still say the same. I doubt very much most of you would still be so cavalier about the affair.

So, while the situation may be unpleasant, if we take some positive steps and relate to the matter both realistically and constructively, we may retain some of the talent and drive that may one day restore our industry.