Artists cannot design interfaces.

[SlowwHand]

I can't believe the arrogance

[Dinner]

So much so you had to say it twice?

[SlowwHand]

Yeah, it's me,Oerdin. You ****head. After all your whining?

[FrostyBoy]

Thanks for the stats KH, i'm more interested in what Blizzard does though.

And as I said before, it's financially smarter to build a stable application over an aesthetically and user-friendly one. Good for the company, sucks for the end-user. That's life.

[MikeH]

Ben, seriously you've been warned several times. Can't you just leave Asher alone?

[ZEE]

My brother is a "Graphic Artist" and i can tell you from personal experience they are a dime a dozen. sn00py might be biased here based on his profession, but so is Asher based on his.

Even though there have been several examples pointed out here already, as a "3rd party" poster, i can say that programmers are a MUCH moar sought after commodity than an artist. On a resume it is much better to say I am a programmer that can draw, than one that says i can draw but i know some programming.

Actually my brother was a concept artist for a MOD/game for UT3 that was picked up by a larger company. They kept the programming team when all my bro had was a "loose relationship" with the original owner to begin with. The company has artists and stuff lined up out the door but the solid competent programmers that already had the code base done were of course kept on the project. So If you hadn't already guessed my bro is still not working in a stable job.

[Lorizael]

I guess it says Abu Dhabi because I didn't hit anything, and Abu Dhabi is the first country in the alphabet.

I generally don't fill out profiles unless I've been on a forum for a while.

Ding.

Asher, stop messing with the newbie.

[rah]

At our company, we have very few specific artist types vs. lots of technical developers. The artists get paid condsiderably less because they're abundant. The top level technical developers are paid a lot of money because the real good ones are rare. They also oversee the work of lots of outsourced technical grunts, but they are the stars.

In the old days when my team designed apps for call centers, I used to put them on the phones to use the apps they designed to help verify that they worked the best they could. SO as stated the testing process is one of the most important steps in desing. At poorly run shops, they short change that aspect and pay the price in the long run.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

BSc CompSci, median salary by job title, US:



BA Graphic Design, same stats:



The two key comparisons are, first: Software Engineer/Developer vs. Graphic Artist/Designer 61k vs 37k

And after a decade on the ladder: Sr Software Engineer/Developer vs Sr. Graphic Designer 88k vs. 49k

In order to get to EVEN 50+k the artist needs to have the word "Director" coming after his name. Incidentally, the lowest of the low code monkeys with a BSc compsci have median income 55k (programmer analyst)

Did you really need to remind me how underpaid I am?

[Felch]

Thanks for the stats KH, i'm more interested in what Blizzard does though.

And as I said before, it's financially smarter to build a stable application over an aesthetically and user-friendly one. Good for the company, sucks for the end-user. That's life.

It sucks for the end-user to have a stable application?

[Asher]

The main problem comes down to utility. Software developers of all kinds are hired to solve problems, from the lowest end of code monkeys to the highest of software architect. The skills and mindset required for being competent at that job are considerably rarer than someone with good artistic talent. That's why they are compensated well, comparatively.

What artists generally provided isn't this high-level big-picture like Frosty implies, artists are almost always employed on a "make an icon that looks like this" type fashion. It's a "nice to have" type of window dressing that is pretty much inconsequential to the functionality of the app, which is what businesses and consumers alike actually pay for. People don't buy software or use software because it is pretty, they buy it because it does what they want. Looking pretty just becomes a differentiator between that product and its competition, as long as it doesn't get in the way of functionality.

So because the role of the artist in software development is secondary, so too is the compensation.

[rah]

CIV III, pretty but it sucked.

PRETTY DOES NOT = Fuctional.

[Asher]

Thanks for the stats KH, i'm more interested in what Blizzard does though.

Games are an oddity because the "artist" jobs are far more demanding technically than your typical graphic designer. Being able to design and implement competent 3D models and textures within polygon and memory budgets, is a far rarer skill.

Despite this, software developers still make more money.

Avg salaries at Activision-Blizzard (from glassdoor.com)

Software Engineer: $70,000 - $79,000
Programmer: $76,000 - $83,000
Senior Software Engineer: $81,000 - $121,000
Lead Programmer: $144,000 - $154,000
Technical Director: $165,000 - $177,000

Game Designer (remember a long time ago where I argued with you that you overstated the importance of the 'Game Designer' title?): $53,000 - $73,000

Modeller (Artist): $63,000 - $67,000
Lead Artist: $110,000 - $130,000


I had considered going into games design myself, and was doing a round of interviews with Silicon Knights, but between what they had offered in terms of salary/benefits and what my friends who worked for EA had told me, it scared me off. There's far better money for good software developers outside of video games, especially in the financial services sector that I went into. My billing rate for a large US investment bank $185/hr just 1 year out of school -- try doing that with an artistic degree.

So, as I said, video games is an oddity. It'll comparatively overpay artists since the skillset is far more narrow and highly technical compared to most artistic jobs, and it'll slightly below par for developers because about 85% of fresh university compsci grads have a dream to make video games. The pool is huge, so salary is lower. It's only when you start to get to the highly experienced games developers that the salary goes way up, because the skillset to be a lead is very rare -- not many people can crank out and optimize code at a level needed for top-rated AAA games like Warcraft and Halo.

[Asher]

Here are salaries from Electronic Arts, sample size is much larger so we get averages too:

Software Engineer I: $52 - $87K ($73,499 avg)
Software Engineer II: $65 - $105k ($83,210 avg)
Software Engineer III: $80 - $123K ($99,964 avg)
Lead Software Engineer: $80k - $123k ($101,000 avg)
Senior Software Engineer: $105 - $142K ($126,812 avg)

Game Designer: $60k - $86k ($73,667 avg)
Senior Game Designer: $75k - $90k ($80,533 avg)

Artist: $47k - $74k ($60,645 avg)
Technical Artist: $68k - $77k ($72,319 avg)
Graphic Artist: $47k - $55k (no avg given, small sample size)
Lead Technical Artist: $53 - $57k (no avg given, small sample size)

[FrostyBoy]

Thanks Asher, it's good to know.


But I hope you don't think you have convinced me you're right. My argument still stands, if you still remember what it was. In fact, no one has barely even addressed it in this entire thread, kind of sidetracked into artists vs programmers, which was not my argument.