This piece causes a lot of confusion among people working in the industry because the VERY vast majority of us do not get paid this much money by a long shot. There are a couple of theories on this number now, so maybe some context, for your consideration:https://twitter.com/GIBiz/status/1140900959322804224 …
-
Show this thread
-
One theory is that this number is skewed by the ratio of how much CEOs get paid vs their average employee, which in many cases is very high, as you can imagine. Another one is that salaries in the US are a little closer to that number compared to e.g. Europe.
6 replies 4 retweets 83 likesShow this thread -
Take into account that the US also has a lot of AAA studios that have to compete with tech salaries in big cities such as Seattle with Amazon and Microsoft. Game jobs notoriously pay less regardless and often have to find other incentives to lure workers.
1 reply 0 retweets 60 likesShow this thread -
My gut feeling is that this number comes from how managers and execs think about calculating cost for projects, where you usually calculate 100k on average per head on your project headcount, because that’s roughly what a company spends to employ someone, everything considered.
3 replies 5 retweets 59 likesShow this thread -
The overall gist is: We don’t make this kind of money - most of us don’t and would have to fight quite hard to even jump over the 100k mark. If you’re in a big city you might have a shot. If you’re a programmer you are the most likely to make >100k in games.
3 replies 7 retweets 73 likesShow this thread
Also worth noting 100k/year in San Francisco is considered low income, insane as that is.https://www.theladders.com/career-advice/if-you-make-100k-in-san-francisco-you-are-low-income …
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.