Free help: no thanks!
by Joshua Dallman · in General Discussion · 02/14/2005 (1:55 pm) · 5 replies
It was asked in my last plan why I don't accept free work for the game. This is even if they've offered to work for free to help "the cause" or just be involved in a fun project. There's many reasons for this intentional decision, which we I will now explore my perspective on. I thought a forum post would be a better place for this than a personal plan so as to provoke some discussion on it, and since it's not specific to my game but rather game managing in general.
One, I want to avoid legal trouble down the road. I pay team members through a site that has the legal paperwork built in, so there's no question about IP ownership. This is with regards to both any claims made on sales profits AND any potential problems of an artist selling the same model to someone else; or a programmer "running off with the code." If their work was free, it would be unethical; since I am paying them, it is against the law (not in the criminal sense, but I would have grounds to sue them).
Two, I'm not scraping by so badly that I can't afford to pay people, so I do, even if it's modest compensation. Since there's no promise of profits even when a percentage has been offered, because there's no promise the game will even get DONE (let alone SELL), paying something up-front improves overall morale and motivation even if making money isn't the main motivation for them working on the project.
Three, I'm trying to build professional level games, and it seems to me that to do so you need professionals, and professionals rarely work for free unless you know them personally. The only "friend" working on this game is my buddy helping with some minor sound editing, everyone else are professionals I have never met.
Four, it's hard to direct work when it's being given to you for free, that's a nightmare I'll NEVER, EVER walk in to. I'm VERY particular about the overall vision (while still allowing leeway for individual creative freedom). I'm VERY detail-oriented in molding that vision (while not being so picky that it slows down the project). You just don't have as much directing freedom when the work is free, and I wouldn't be satisfied with the results without that directing freedom. It's not about "being the boss," it's about making the best game you can. Artists/programmers have frequently said their work comes out BETTER as a result of my direction (and it does), so it's not just a matter of changing things on a whim because of personal preferences, it's a matter of improving the final product for all involved. A sub-reason as part of this would be an artist/programmer who insists on something about the game being done their way, or trying to hijack leadership of the game. Frankly, I'm paying for the work, so even if you disagree I will take your thoughts into account but I have the final word. If they're volunteering their work, it's harder to force their hand. Hierarchies are not bad onto themselves; you cannot be apologetic about being a leader. You need structure to make a game, because a game is itself a highly structured thing. That being said, if you ONLY lead and never collaborate, you're not a very good leader -- you're just an inventory list, marking things off as they get completed. There is a balance to these things.
Five, with paid work I can set deadlines that they agree to and I can hold them to (while still being flexible of course). With free work, I'm at the mercy of hoping they're professional enough to deliver, but the project could potentially get slowed down / delayed / never made as a result (a fate all too many indie games befall). The first instructional designer failed to deliver even after being given several extensions, so he was booted (and didn't get a dime). It's harder to kick someone out and hold them to deadlines when they're working for free. It's easy to agree to do work if you have no stake in it; actually doing it is a whole nother thing.
[continued]
One, I want to avoid legal trouble down the road. I pay team members through a site that has the legal paperwork built in, so there's no question about IP ownership. This is with regards to both any claims made on sales profits AND any potential problems of an artist selling the same model to someone else; or a programmer "running off with the code." If their work was free, it would be unethical; since I am paying them, it is against the law (not in the criminal sense, but I would have grounds to sue them).
Two, I'm not scraping by so badly that I can't afford to pay people, so I do, even if it's modest compensation. Since there's no promise of profits even when a percentage has been offered, because there's no promise the game will even get DONE (let alone SELL), paying something up-front improves overall morale and motivation even if making money isn't the main motivation for them working on the project.
Three, I'm trying to build professional level games, and it seems to me that to do so you need professionals, and professionals rarely work for free unless you know them personally. The only "friend" working on this game is my buddy helping with some minor sound editing, everyone else are professionals I have never met.
Four, it's hard to direct work when it's being given to you for free, that's a nightmare I'll NEVER, EVER walk in to. I'm VERY particular about the overall vision (while still allowing leeway for individual creative freedom). I'm VERY detail-oriented in molding that vision (while not being so picky that it slows down the project). You just don't have as much directing freedom when the work is free, and I wouldn't be satisfied with the results without that directing freedom. It's not about "being the boss," it's about making the best game you can. Artists/programmers have frequently said their work comes out BETTER as a result of my direction (and it does), so it's not just a matter of changing things on a whim because of personal preferences, it's a matter of improving the final product for all involved. A sub-reason as part of this would be an artist/programmer who insists on something about the game being done their way, or trying to hijack leadership of the game. Frankly, I'm paying for the work, so even if you disagree I will take your thoughts into account but I have the final word. If they're volunteering their work, it's harder to force their hand. Hierarchies are not bad onto themselves; you cannot be apologetic about being a leader. You need structure to make a game, because a game is itself a highly structured thing. That being said, if you ONLY lead and never collaborate, you're not a very good leader -- you're just an inventory list, marking things off as they get completed. There is a balance to these things.
Five, with paid work I can set deadlines that they agree to and I can hold them to (while still being flexible of course). With free work, I'm at the mercy of hoping they're professional enough to deliver, but the project could potentially get slowed down / delayed / never made as a result (a fate all too many indie games befall). The first instructional designer failed to deliver even after being given several extensions, so he was booted (and didn't get a dime). It's harder to kick someone out and hold them to deadlines when they're working for free. It's easy to agree to do work if you have no stake in it; actually doing it is a whole nother thing.
[continued]
About the author
#2
BUT!
Accepting money for your work improves both your situation and the situation of your buyer. You gain the economic freedom to make your work a priority, and your buyer gets the better work that results from it being a priority.
Look at Melv. He couldn't put the level of effort into T2D that he has if he were doing it for free. He has a kid now, and kids have a way of taking up your play time. But T2D isn't just play, now - it will provide him with income, and that income will help support his fxMiniMelv.
If you want to do work for free, but find yourself thinking, "I can't do this right now - I have other priorities that can't wait," you need to seriously consider working for money.
02/14/2005 (3:15 pm)
I think the flip side of this is being willing to accept money for your work as a coder/artist/whathaveyou. There's a definite sentiment on GarageGames that resources should be provided for free. And certainly there are certain resources that make sense as free contributions.BUT!
Accepting money for your work improves both your situation and the situation of your buyer. You gain the economic freedom to make your work a priority, and your buyer gets the better work that results from it being a priority.
Look at Melv. He couldn't put the level of effort into T2D that he has if he were doing it for free. He has a kid now, and kids have a way of taking up your play time. But T2D isn't just play, now - it will provide him with income, and that income will help support his fxMiniMelv.
If you want to do work for free, but find yourself thinking, "I can't do this right now - I have other priorities that can't wait," you need to seriously consider working for money.
#3
Pay-by-royalties doesn't seem to work well because such a small percentage of projects get finished. For-pay projects should be paid as an amount per resource made.
02/20/2005 (8:30 pm)
I think that any project can be EITHER for-pay or not. For-pay projects should be owned by whoever's doing the paying. Projects that aren't paid should be jointly owned by everyone on the project team and should be given away for free.Pay-by-royalties doesn't seem to work well because such a small percentage of projects get finished. For-pay projects should be paid as an amount per resource made.
#4
02/20/2005 (8:49 pm)
I haven't done this in the past but in the future I'll be doing the same thing. I'm sure you'll do very well with this setup and your game will surely be closer to your original vision with fewer compromises because of it.
#5
1. You could make volunteers and employees alike sign a non-disclosure and copy right protection agreement. If a volunteer is unwilling to sign such an agreement then you should treat them just like an employee that wouldn't agree to sign it.
2. I have to disagree simply because modest (and typically bare scraps) compensation simply isn't motivational. If you can pay them enough that they actually begin to include that pay in their monthly budget and utilize it as more than a lunch here or there, then they will appreciate the money. Otherwise, it's a little pocket change they could live without. Motivation is better instilled through group activities, such as lan parties, paintball, or even just a night out bar hopping.
3. Professional level teams are determined by how the leader manages them. I make a point clearly indicating to my friends when it is time to be professional and when we can resume normal attitudes. I have learned that this works best when in groups of no larger than three, beyond that the friends make it harder to preside over the discussions and manage work flow.
4. I have not had a problem with this. By clearly indicating when I am speaking professionally with my volunteer workers (my friends) they have come to understand that I take charge and will reject poor work, give constructive criticism, and give thanks for work well done. They may be volunteering work, but the moment you begin to treat it like what they offer you is holy and too fragile to touch, they will be the ones in charge and they will be the ones guiding the creative energies of the game - not you. This is where you need to be a leader and firmly maintain your position. Most volunteers will end up respecting you for this and a few maverics will leave. Losing a volunteer because you wouldn't let them take charge is much better than having lost control of your project for the small amount of work they would produce.
5. You are mostly right about this point, but lax work schedules can be mitigated. I normally will talk with the volunteer and find out what they have (and don't have) planned for the following two or three weeks, not too far out as schedules change more the further out they are planned. They will usually indicate what days they will be able to get some work done. I then let them know when I will check in with them for a progress report (typically the day after one or two of their good production days), and then also set a deadline for completion of a couple of goals (typically the day after the next couple of their good production days). That establishes the days they know I will review their work and give feedback, but I also will normally communicate with them just before or in the middle of their productive days to quickly review what we wanted to get done and to make sure they are feeling good, family is doing well, and that I appreciate the work they are doing. This amount of communication helps to give them goals and structure while not dictating or restricting them too much. Normally they will get done what is planned or somethign close to it.
06/07/2005 (6:54 am)
I have to disagree.1. You could make volunteers and employees alike sign a non-disclosure and copy right protection agreement. If a volunteer is unwilling to sign such an agreement then you should treat them just like an employee that wouldn't agree to sign it.
2. I have to disagree simply because modest (and typically bare scraps) compensation simply isn't motivational. If you can pay them enough that they actually begin to include that pay in their monthly budget and utilize it as more than a lunch here or there, then they will appreciate the money. Otherwise, it's a little pocket change they could live without. Motivation is better instilled through group activities, such as lan parties, paintball, or even just a night out bar hopping.
3. Professional level teams are determined by how the leader manages them. I make a point clearly indicating to my friends when it is time to be professional and when we can resume normal attitudes. I have learned that this works best when in groups of no larger than three, beyond that the friends make it harder to preside over the discussions and manage work flow.
4. I have not had a problem with this. By clearly indicating when I am speaking professionally with my volunteer workers (my friends) they have come to understand that I take charge and will reject poor work, give constructive criticism, and give thanks for work well done. They may be volunteering work, but the moment you begin to treat it like what they offer you is holy and too fragile to touch, they will be the ones in charge and they will be the ones guiding the creative energies of the game - not you. This is where you need to be a leader and firmly maintain your position. Most volunteers will end up respecting you for this and a few maverics will leave. Losing a volunteer because you wouldn't let them take charge is much better than having lost control of your project for the small amount of work they would produce.
5. You are mostly right about this point, but lax work schedules can be mitigated. I normally will talk with the volunteer and find out what they have (and don't have) planned for the following two or three weeks, not too far out as schedules change more the further out they are planned. They will usually indicate what days they will be able to get some work done. I then let them know when I will check in with them for a progress report (typically the day after one or two of their good production days), and then also set a deadline for completion of a couple of goals (typically the day after the next couple of their good production days). That establishes the days they know I will review their work and give feedback, but I also will normally communicate with them just before or in the middle of their productive days to quickly review what we wanted to get done and to make sure they are feeling good, family is doing well, and that I appreciate the work they are doing. This amount of communication helps to give them goals and structure while not dictating or restricting them too much. Normally they will get done what is planned or somethign close to it.
Torque Owner Joshua Dallman
Default Studio Name
Five reasons to pay for work: avoid legal problems, compensate your team members, get professionals, have directing freedom, and make deadlines. One reason to not pay for work: you don't have any money! That's sometimes a good reason, and sometimes not. Heck, you can make $50 a week selling plasma (your own, I hope!), after a year that's enough to make a small game. I once lived happily entirely on plasma donations alone with no other income, savings, or free rent, but that's another story :) And if your game is being made on blood money, or you simply worked hard for the money you're spending on the game, believe me, you WILL find ways to be efficient and measured about how you spend it, which will actually result in a better product than if you had millions to wastefully throw around. That you don't have an unlimited budget is NO excuse to not make your game -- it wouldn't automatically result in a better product. With a limited budget you have to find clever ways to add value to your game, and clever games are better than dull ones. As one example, the game I'm working on is going to have a whole educational portion to it. With respect to other game components (models, programming), this was very inexpensive to add in. But the value it adds is (in my opinion) tremendous. It's one more thing to make it unique and set it apart. Enough "one more things" and you've got something special!
That said, there are exceptions. If I'm paying for a model, and you give me a second version of it "for free," I'd accept that. If I'm paying for concept art, and you throw in a few "for free," I'd accept that. If you're working on some generic community resource code non-specific to my game, I'd accept that. If you wanted to give me artwork, models, or programming time for free, I would not accept that. If you wanted to play my game and offer me QA feedback, I'd accept that.
Feel free to discuss, or ask questions!
Josh