
You get what you pay for. - minimaxir
http://trenchescomic.com/tales/post/you-get-what-you-pay-for
======
jfasi
The author could have played this completely differently. Instead of thinking
of himself as being surrounded by idiots, he could think of himself as a fox
in the hen house.

Put it another way. He's the only person in the organization who knows what
they're doing when it comes to testing. He's in a position where he can have a
tremendous positive effect on his organization. If instead of complaining that
his fellow testers are incompetent, he could bring a benefit to the
organization and pocket part of it.

Here's the script: "Hello Mr. Suit. Notice how I've discovered ten times as
many bugs as my compatriots combined in the same amount of time. Why don't you
fire ten of them and bump me up to fifty an hour. You'll be saving ninety
dollars an hour at the cost of an extra forty-one going to me." Every
business-minded manager would at least consider this. Naturally the numbers
need to be adjusted, but anyone with a significantly higher output than their
colleagues has the opportunity to make this sort of case.

Here's another potential script: "Lemme level with you, Mr. Suit, these guys
are all kids who like playing games, while I've got years of experience as a
professional tester under my belt. Why don't you replace their manager with
me, and I'll train them myself. Ill whip them into shape, their overall bug
detection rate will double, and you won't have to pay a penny. Just replace
their ineffective manager with me."

Lesson learned: this situation isn't cause for bitching and moaning, it's an
opportunity to cut throats.

~~~
patio11
This would be my preferred resolution if we assume that decreasing defects is
actually a priority for this organization. We have one pretty persuasive piece
of evidence to the contrary: their anti-defect strategy is paying college kids
$9 an hour to play video games. The company might have come to the conclusion
that bugs don't move the bottom line as much as e.g. box art. This counsels
either a) getting into box art or b) getting the heck out of dodge.

~~~
jamesbrownuhh
If that were genuinely the company strategy then why would they bother to hire
testers _at all?_

It smacks more of "we know that software must be tested, and this looks like
testing so this is what we must do" \- a recognition of a requirement, but not
one which has been adequately implemented and fulfilled. There may have
genuinely been nobody there who knew any better.

~~~
chc
> _If that were genuinely the company strategy then why would they bother to
> hire testers _at all?__

Because they can get kids to do it virtually for free, and it isn't completely
without value.

------
dia80
I prefer to state this principle as "what you pay for is usually an upper
bound for what you will get".

------
Goosey
The author is encountering the issue that skilled testing yields far more
value per hour than unskilled testing without a rigorous way of demonstrating
this fact. It makes me wonder if a rigorous method could be developed to
quantify testing output. Presumably it could. (I'm generalizing my thoughts
outside of the games industry here)

Out of my experience with great QA in the past the two significant things they
bring which poor QA does not are: 1) they create a detailed testing plan that
allows them to 'checkbox' off things rather than simply throw time at randomly
fucking around. 2) they have very rigorous reporting of issues including
detailed repro steps, environment information, issue categorization, and (if
the technology is provided) stack dumps.

Perhaps a company that provides this service specifically would work?
Especially if the company had a technology aspect that allowed them to
automate their own testing. Testing as a partnership service sounds like a
business idea that makes great sense to me yet would be a difficult sell. It's
rare to acknowledge that defects are guaranteed to exist, that a systematic
plan to discover them can be created, that the earlier the discovery is found
the lower the cost (exponentially) is to fix.

On the other hand those great QA of my past also had very strong domain
knowledge of what they were testing. The audit step to create the plan would
be important: the best QA really need to know the intended results for
everything inside and out.

It all feels like a pipe dream to me, unfortunately. The norm seems to be "we
don't want to invest in Quality Assurance, but we want Assured Quality, so
just don't make mistakes!"

------
protomyth
I do wonder sometimes if MBA and Business programs in general have some
fundamental problem with teaching their student about skilled labor.

It looks like this is just another example of management believing these
positions are unskilled labor that a certain type of folk likes to do versus
an actual profession.

Now, having low-paying starter jobs isn't a bad thing in general. The local
fast food joint probably has a fair number of high school students with no
skills that are there for some spending money. People learn job skills by
having a job.

Unfortunately, there seems to be quite a few business people unable to
distinguish between I need professionals and unskilled labor. Ask any graphic
designer about this one. I am amazed about how this is so common across
multiple professions and roles. I honestly think the business schools in this
country need to be overhauled because they are teaching people to make bad
decisions.

------
chrisbennet
I think that many employers are hoping that they will get lucky and "discover"
a genius just out of school that will work for entry level pay.

~~~
throwaway7767
I recently found out my friend of many years and flatmate, a very skilled
programmer, was making about minimum wage and had been for all of his working
life (15+ years). These people exist.

I told him he was getting shafted hard, and convinced him to go demand a
raise. Sure enough, the next day he told me his boss doubled his pay as soon
as he asked. He just never had the confidence to ask before.

~~~
danielweber
My personal rules for maximizing my pay:

1\. Don't have my head up my ass.

It can be hard. I can totally imagine myself being your flatmate in a parallel
universe.

This should be required reading for each of us at least once a year:
[http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-
negotiation/](http://www.kalzumeus.com/2012/01/23/salary-negotiation/)

~~~
Xdes
I wish I had read this before my job interview. I feel like I'm getting
lowballed when I thought the offer I got was great. I'll definitely read this
before my next job interview. Does this apply to freelance rate negotiation
too?

~~~
danielweber
Honestly I just screwed it up a few days ago myself. I let myself get backed
into the corner of talking about my salary history. And it's not the first
time I've done it, not even the first time year since reading that essay.

~~~
Xdes
It is the same for me. I wish I could give you a pat on the back.

------
themodelplumber
I worked at a software testing firm as a summer job one year while I was still
at university. A few of the guys at the firm were refugees from game testing
gigs, and they universally said it sucked. So this doesn't surprise me. Their
experiences sounded pretty bad at the time, being that at this "superior" job,
we worked standing up in a warehouse. Not the greatest working conditions
unless you think it's cool enough to be surrounded by computers of every sort.

I was really impressed by the guys who had been there for a while--they
actually understood what they were doing, like the author of the linked
article. If they looked over your shoulder for even a few seconds, it felt
like you learned something.

One day the higher-ups noticed that I knew how to use a particular kind of
software and within an hour I had a raise and a desk inside an air-conditioned
office. No chance of doing warehouse work anymore. It was like the feeling you
get when you go from a parking garage into a hotel lobby. That put the testing
conditions into stark relief--it wasn't really as fun or interesting as I
thought it would be. Putting it on my resume afterwards attracted some really
boring job offers. But lots of places want cheap QA.

The people on top at the testing firm had it pretty much figured out. If their
clients wanted to pay for really high-quality testing, they could do that. The
resources are there. On the other hand, if they are just getting their
software out the door, they can pay weak rates for summer job kids, and tell
their developers to yell and scream until they get the more interesting-
sounding bugs narrowed down to something actionable. I remember a few
irritated emails: "I don't really care that the button is out of alignment,"
or "I'm not paying for grammar advice," etc. My bad, buddy. Why don't you talk
to management about the conditions of your testing contract, and they'll get
one of those veterans on the job? So yeah, the customers got what they paid
for, too.

~~~
danielweber
Maybe I'm imagining things way better than they are, but wouldn't everything a
game tester does be recorded? At least the screen, I mean.

~~~
TheSOB888
>Maybe I'm imagining things way better than they are

Yes, you are. Read the archives to learn more.

------
hagbardgroup
There are a lot of unfortunate laws and cultural practices that make it
challenging for American companies that run at scale to surface merit in the
hiring process. There are also a lot of cultural factors that go back even to
the 18th century that lead Americans (almost uniquely so in the Western
countries) to discount the notion that skilled people really are much more
capable than the drooling fellow that they picked up off the side of the
street.

The temporary solution is to refuse to work for such companies and to compete
with them until they go out of business, despite their capital advantages.

~~~
eldavido
Would love more elaboration on this. What factors are you talking about,
specifically?

~~~
hagbardgroup
Alluding to Alexis de Tocqueville's 'Democracy in America.' Americans have a
tendency to discount the notions of expertise and mastery, instead trusting in
the 'common person' to make sensible decisions, and for there to be special
virtue in commonness.

Often times this is hypocritical. Warren Buffet has a folksy demeanor, but his
IQ is off the charts and he reads more than several hundred pages per day of
challenging material and makes numerous critical decisions besides. But he
knows that affecting a down-home-average-man persona is the way to sway
Americans who distrust eggheads who show off their expertise.

The negative effect of this in the workplace is that American pretenses to
egalitarianism result in a lack of respect for skill, acumen, and
intelligence. It's not quite the 'tall poppy' effect you might see in other
countries, but it can have some similar effects.

------
eldavido
This is a great vignette on why I insist on working in Bay Area-style
companies.

The kind of places that view software test/dev as labor or "resources" really
are missing the point. Owing to work styles, tools, experience, and knowledge,
the best people in this field (software) can do things that less
talented/experienced people simply can't. Not "I can get it done 2x as fast as
the next guy", but "I can find issues, bugs, and defects others wouldn't find,
AND I can do it more quickly."

Coming back to reality, a lot of software doesn't need to be the best. For
every blockbuster game, or operating system kernel, or billion-user social
network, there are hundreds of CRUD apps, Wordpress sites, etc. that are more
rote. But to compete in the winner-take-all kind of markets, you have to pay
for the best.

I think the point is, buyers and sellers of talent need to be realistic about
what they need and what they're willing to pay for it. To the guy who wrote
the article, find a place that (1) NEEDS your skills (frankly a lot of places
don't) and (2) is well-funded enough to pay market rate for them.

~~~
eldavido
Clarification:

Broadly speaking, I think there are two major classes of software.

"Class 1" software is produced under tight budget constraints, often for a
cost center. These are the payroll systems, the receivables tracking apps,
employee training websites, admin portals, etc. Big consultancies write a lot
of this stuff (Deloitte, IBM, etc.) This kind of software is tremendously
important, but isn't seen as differentiating by management. "Success" here
means (1) it works "well enough" and more importantly, (2) we didn't blow the
budget writing it. Cost is always a factor.

"Class 2" software contributes directly to the bottom line of the company.
It's produced by expensive, in-house developers who take their craft seriously
and want to deliver the best product possible. Budget is defined by P&L and
success means "the project will generate a lot of revenue". Note that cost
control isn't as big a concern here.

Now, having worked in the industry, I've realized probably 90% (99%?) of all
software produced in the world is "Class 1" software. But you really, really
want to be working on "Class 2" software; it's better in every way, including
attention to quality, willingness to pay developers, etc. For developers, the
experience of making Class 2 software strictly dominates Class 1.

As for the article, I've noticed how when management crosses over from one
class to the other, there's a lot of conflict. Beware of "operations"-type
people working as project managers. You really want line management to be
former developers who "get it". It might take moving to a different geo, or
working remotely, but just don't work on crap.

Note: as I write this, I realize I'm reiterating a stack exchange answer I saw
a while back -- great reading for all developers.
[http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45776/why-
do-...](http://programmers.stackexchange.com/questions/45776/why-do-business-
analysts-and-project-managers-get-higher-salaries-than-programme)

~~~
Goosey
Just want to thank you for this comment. I've been wrestling in my mind with
trying to define the differences between great jobs and not so great jobs I
have had, since 'obvious' things like
salary/hours/perks/equipment/thing-i'm-working-on have proven to not be a
useful correlation. The closest I had come to is "I want to work on companies
bottom line, which means I want to work in a company where the bottom line is
the software they make" rather than "the bottom line is getting contacts, the
software being made is a side effect of that". Your explanation (and the
answer in that stack exchange question) captures my thoughts much more
clearly.

------
eloisant
One problem with the gaming industry is that it sounds fun to be in, so many
young people are willing to accept shitty conditions just to be employed by a
game company.

After a few years if they figure out it's not worth it, the company just have
to hire again in the endless stream of youngsters.

------
vinceguidry
What in the holy hell? Management complains about issues that you have a
perfect way of solving, you meet with said management, and you come out of
that meeting having damaged your career instead of leveraging your knowledge
and experience and track record into a leadership role and pay bump?

You need to really re-examine how you deal with people going forward.

------
danielweber
The gaming industry has lots of people for which its "one of their passions"
and who will accept low pay for the chance to work in it. And the industry
prices salaries accordingly.

I'd recommend we form a trade group and boycott working for the industry, but
there are lots of people for which its "one of their passions" who would (as
is their right) break ranks and still do it, so it would be an exercise in
futility.

In any industry in which lots of people pursue it with little regard for
compensation, salaries are going to be in the toilet.

~~~
pmjordan
Many game companies won't even hire developers who are very good but don't
have (much) game experience because this is seen as not being passionate
enough about games. And yes, they're happy to hire the inferior but
"passionate" candidate.

------
pbreit
Wow, what a nice opportunity completely wasted.

------
JTon
I enjoyed the anecdote but the piece read as a drunken boast.

------
Dewie
Aww, I thought it was gonna be a comic.

------
devtty0
Haha, I've seen it all now. This kid is 25 and is totally, no-tongue-in-cheek
impressed with himself for bettering a few teenagers at a shitty job. People
will literally stick their chest out about anything.

Kid, there are people in this world putting rockets in space, making self-
driving cars and making lasers that can shoot flying mortars out of the sky.
Maybe one day you will actually have something legitimate to be cocky about,
but until then I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for
some perspective.

~~~
noir_lord
You mock (what you perceive to be) a display of arrogance by an astounding
display of arrogance.

He was actually polite about the people he worked with an identified the issue
as been at a more senior level, the guy also has the experience to back up his
claims.

Now I could say "I suggest you wind your neck in a little and take pause for a
little perspective" but then I'd be the condescending douche.

Also that there are people making self-driving cars and lasers that can shoot
mortars out the sky devalues other peoples work not at all, indeed I suspect
the mortar shooting out the sky laser is rigorously tested by Q&A.

~~~
devtty0
Bitch please, don't give me that let's-all-be-polite-and-mediocre BS. I made
my comment, you make yours.

~~~
noir_lord
Your first comment drew me a picture and your second colored it in :).

