Game Designers Earn More In UK Than In US

Mark Graham writes "A number of surveys have recently put out details on the wages games developers earn in various parts of the world. Surveys by Develop in Europe and Game Developer in the US were among these. A report now compares the salary levels of various roles in the US and Europe. Turns out that game designers and producers do better in the UK, while artists and QA/testing wages are relatively the same on both sides of the Atlantic — and QA specifically is the worst paid; the lowest salaries being around £12,000/$25,000 — ouch! Luckily, I'm a programmer, but looks like I need to move country: we have the best paid roles in games development, but programmers are better off in America."

Re:In Useful Dollars

[mikael]

All areas are expensive now. The UK is currently experiencing a housing shortage in the South of England and Scotland due to immigration and growth. They need to build at least 120,000 homes/year just to match growth. One solution has been "garden grabbing" where devlopers buy up a house with a large garden, and convert it into a block of flats which are sold to the "Buy-to-Let" market for minimum wage foreign workers.

Another problem is that of (some say overpaid) city workers who earn 100K+ pounds/year + bonuses who are buying everything up. They will buy a house in the outer suburbs of London for work (Home Counties), a house in the countryside for the weekends, and a flat or two for their children in the cities, when they become students. Needless to say, this does have a effect of pricing the locals out - the UK is currently experiencing a migration of 700K nationals/year due to this as well as the increasing Islamic population in the inner city suburbs.
Banks were encouraged to allow first-time buyers to borrow up to 5x their salary, using 100% mortgages.

With interest rates going up and the cost of food going up by 20%/years, this might just change.

Re:In Useful Dollars

[Doug-W]

Because the game industry is mostly a closed industry. If you work in the game industry now, chances are great that your next job will also be in the game industry. This promotes clustering of studios. If you're going to strike out on your own, you strike out where your last position was leading to more studios in the same region. Likewise, before you move for a position you look to see what other studios are there in case it doesn't work out. For the most part you're looking at one of maybe 6 places: Seattle, San Francisco (and down into San Jose), Orange County/LA, San Diego, Austin, Maryland. Are there other studios around? Yes, but pretty much just 1-2 in the entire town. Look at Las Vegas that had Westwood, and when they closed some Westwood people founded Petroglyph, but it's still the only studio in town. Phoenix has Cheyenne Mountain Games and nothing else, Houston has Timegate, and nothing else. Etc...

The data looks very suspicious to me

[aeoo]

I know a lot of programmers and one artist and I believe all of them make vastly more than indicated on that chart. I think the chart is a bullshit propaganda piece to get people to believe that programmers and other roles make less money than they really do.

I have especially grave doubts in the low and high ends. I wouldn't count intern and 12 year old kids' ("a friend of a CTO's kid who wanted to work here") salaries as low end. And I will never believe than no programmer makes over 70k in game development. Game dev is technically one of the most challenging things you could be doing as a programmer and it must pay a lot more than what's indicated by the article.

News Flash! Weak dollar = low comparitiv salaries!

[Vellmont]

The US dollar is very weak right now, to the point where European banks are considering propping it up. Is it really such a surprise that US salaries are comparatively low if you only consider the exchange ratio?

Exchange ratio's don't look at cost of living in each place. An economist would look at what a "basket of goods" would buy in each country to do a comparison. Exchange rates are based on market forces, and don't necessarily have anything to do with buying power in each country.

Re:Not unique to the "gaming industry"

[Lost Engineer]

I hate to make the same post twice, but there seems to be this misconception that US salaries do not include health care. In most cases (especially in software) a benefits package will pay the majority of these costs for a man and his family. This extra compensation is not generally included in salary figures.

You do however contribute 6 or something percent towards OTHER, (jobless, aged, disabled) people's health care costs, which is subtracted from your salary as a tax, although they don't call it that.

Re:The data looks very suspicious to me

[Shados]

Im guessing for programmers they count everything, including QAs and low end staff.

The average salary in the US for a game dev/programmer (not counting interns, QAs, etc) is actually about 83.5k last I checked. (I forget the source).

That said, game development is a field of extremes. The star programmers will make 6 or (::gasps::) even 7 digit if they have parts in the company. Average joe "Programming games is cool!" out of school will have issues paying rent though. Developing business apps is a far more reliable source of income over a long period of time.

Re:In Useful Dollars

[nick_davison]

That's cute and all, but what is that in pocket money? When you take out taxes, health care, rent, gas, water, electricity, phone, internet, etc... how much is left? Is there still an advantage in the UK?

Speaking as both an England to America immigrant and as someone who's worked in the games industry:

You pay more tax in the UK but you get more benefits to it. By the time you pay to get those benefits back, you get about the same end result.

Yes, American healthcare is "private" - but the standard private healthcare in the U.S. is very similar in level to NHS care in the UK. The waiting lists might be a little shorter but bean counters are still the order of the day, you're still going in to crowded waiting rooms, the hours are still inconvenient and you get charged far more in copays. Whilst free British compares to paid American, paid British is in a totally different league - nothing I've seen in the states comes close to what I got under WorldCom's BUPA coverage in London.

Food is curious one. When it comes to true budget items, the 5p tins of baked beans and 11p loaves of cheap white bread I bought as a student don't translate in to 9c tins and 20c loaves. Eating out appears cheaper in the U.S. but you then whack on 8% in taxes and the social pressure of 20% tips vs. the UK where tax is already included and tipping is something you do to reward good service, not because the owners are too cheap to pay properly.

Cars... I buy British anyway. Just paid $30,000 for a very comfortably spec'd Mini Cooper S. Would likely pay a little more in Europe, even though there's less shipping. In part that's simply because the dollar's so weak right now. The Lotus I have my heart set on is $45k + options, UK runs about $55k in the US, again because of the weak dollar. Then again, a tube pass cost a fraction of that and wasn't an issue when regularly drunk.

Gas is insanely cheaper in the U.S. Even in California with the current craziness, it's about half the price.

Rent in San Diego gets you a nicer, bigger place than you'd get in London - but doesn't get much cheaper. Commute time is about the same. Distances are much greater but your own car and lighter traffic beats waiting for a tube.

Net access... I don't recall that much of a difference. US companies advertise cheaper rates but they only really apply for three months and then they shoot up plus they tack on endless hidden charges. UK companies get a spanking when they try that.

TV costs... Far more choice in the U.S., most of it crap, almost all of it with more commercials than content. Compared to the BBC, it's insane. Even compared to ITV, there's WAY more advertising to sit through. Most of the good US shows make it to the UK. Most of the good UK shows get remade badly for the states while the originals turn up on strange channels.

There's one other huge difference: The European Working Time Directive vs. Overtime Exempt. In Europe you run in to all kinds of issues for pushing much over 40 hours. Granted, most people end up drifting up around 50 but it doesn't go much higher. In the U.S. gaming industry, 80 hour weeks are very common with crunches up around the 100-120 hour point. That work life balance is worth a fortune.

So, in the scheme of things, life's been pretty comparable. I'm more comfortable than I was in the UK but then I'm also more senior now. Like for like, things may seem more or less expensive but hidden vs. apparent costs quickly bring them back to roughly the same point.

Of course, what England doesn't have, and the main reason I'll probably always stay in Southern California, is consistently good weather. No one here really knows what Seasonal Affective Disorder means. The best comparrison is the best day of any given season in England is the worst day of the same season in California. Hence, even in mid winter, you can wander outside in a t-shirt at lunchtime, soak up the sun, and feel good about life. Of course that's just one part of the states. Try it in Minnesota and you're in for a shock.

Re:In Useful Dollars

[Anonymous Coward]

It's enough for me to think that overall, stuff is more expensive than it has to be

There's even a name for it: "Rip-off Britain".

On the bright side, we don't have to pay for health insurance, though the NHS isn't as good as some Americans think (in practice it's very hard to get dentistry for free, for example, which explains the stereotype about British teeth!)

but I would still imagine they treat their employees better as well.

Yeah, in Britain you actually need a reason to fire someone, so it's much harder to impose unfair working conditions and then just fire anyone who refuses to do 120-hour weeks.

Re:In Useful Dollars

[dintech]

You're right about the housing shortage and true, buy to let does cause a bit of pressure on house prices but only if the house lies empty. If you think about it, someone who lives in a rented property is unlikely to also live in a bought one. Unless of course they are also a wealthy, countryside dwelling city worker with the money to spare for a rented apartment in town.

Anyway, city workers compete mostly with each other for the same kinds of property. For example, compare property in E14, the postcode of Canary Wharf with that of neighbouring postcodes such as E1, E2 and E3. It's also where the biggest buy to let market is. Rent and mortgage monthly payments are about comparable but you just need the critical mass of the 10% deposit. With the current credit crisis, gone are the days of 100% mortgages.

I work in Canary Wharf as a java devloper and earn about 65K per year and it's quite difficult to afford to rent OR buy in a place that you don't feel like you're taking part in a Crimewatch reconstruction.

I suppose the only good news is that property prices are falling in the uk. Check out Property Snake [propertysnake.co.uk] for the evidence in real terms.