I get paid by the year
Actually, I don’t get paid by the hour anymore, but thank you. I get paid by the year. — Michael Scott
One of the frustrating things about web development is that the Internet never sleeps. If your site is down, someone is getting mad. Problems are always critical and uptime has to be 100%.
I'm currently responsible for a Facebook game that has 1.5 million users and 70,000 daily active players. If I take the game down for 20 minutes to tweak the database or fix bugs or push out new features, I get massive complaints. There are people in Europe logging on at 6 AM their time (that's like midnight for me) to play before going to work. Every little change reverberates across thousands of angry users who really liked the way things were before the change.
Yesterday I pulled a 16 hour marathon dev session to bring the game to a whole new level that I could move forward with. I'm just about rewritten every line of code in the game, redesigned the entire interface, brought in some new art, etc. etc., and there's still quite a few things to do before I can take my hands off the project and be satisfied with it. One thing I've realized (which I should have realized when I was working on Facebook DotA but didn't) is that I am horribly addicted to this game development stuff. I get this weird high when I push out new features and people are happy about the changes. I certainly can't see myself going back to boring website development or writing useful applications or anything like that.
But something I realized even when I was doing boring websites is that you just can't count hours with this stuff. There are deadlines and crises and all sorts of things in between that might mean checking in on a weekend or staying late at the office. If I hated my job I doubt I would ever do it, but now I like this stuff. I'm motivated by the goal and I finally "get" the whole flexible hours thing.
For this reason, I have always hated the idea of "you have to do X number of hours a week and you are expected to do X number of hours a day." I got this at every stuffy place I ever worked at. For some roles, this is essential. When I worked at a power company in Germany, I could see that everyone had their shifts and being at work was essential for meeting with people at the right times. Software development, however, doesn't always work that way. One day there might be nothing to do because everything works and there are no projects in the pipeline. I remember times at past jobs where I was wandering around the office with nothing to do but I had to hang around to get my hours in. I hated that. I think Michael Scott was spot on. You get paid a lump sum per year regardless of how many hours you actually do. If anything, you should be measured on your performance, not the hours you worked. You should be measured by the success of your code, not how many lines it has. That's the kind of work environment I prefer. Maybe that's bad for people who are not self-motivated, but I know I am. I have to give mad props to Freewebs for being so flexible and letting people set their own schedules. It really does work.
I'd like to hear from anyone who has worked at places that are flexible about hours, and if you were ever able to say "there's nothing left to do here, I'm going home early."
I'm flexible in that I can choose the length of my working week (pay adjusts to fit) but I have to do a full day. This is not a problem for me though, I have a routine and I like it. I'm a creature of habit.
Sounds like you're having fun with your Facebook stuff. I don't understand the appeal, personally.. but best of luck with it!
The problem is, there's /never/ nothing to do. So flexible hours usually only flex in one direction
You need the self-discipline to stop working as well as start. That can be harder. Admit to yourself - are you really just playing, or is this just work by another name. By work I mean activity that benefits your employer.
All that said, nowadays I'd run screaming from a prospective employer that wanted me to clock in out and track hours on a daily basis.
So, I know this isn't exactly the point of your post but you said something I think you would do well to go back and re-read: "Every little change reverberates across thousands of angry users who really liked the way things were before the change."
The question I would ask then is… so, why are you changing it? I'm sure you've got your reasons, but surely your users aren't wanting you to bring back bugs you've fixed, and at least from your perspective, they don't seem to appreciate your improvements….
In his (her?) comment, Sam mentions self-discipline about stopping working. That's really good. I don't bill by the hour for this exact reason, but I also don't make changes without an actual customer-driven need. That one addition to your philosophy could make stopping working as easy as pie.
If you only make changes when people are banging down your door for them, you'll be surprised that you actually get improved customer satisfaction (less griping) and you'll guarantee you're not spending all your time making changes that nobody wants (more time). But that's just my (unsolicited) $0.02 USD.
Best of luck,
-Alan
Alan: You asked a very good question and I'm probably going to make that the subject of an upcoming post so that I can answer it fully, but I'll give you some insight right now. Sometimes you have to make changes because there's no choice, like removing copyrighted images from a game. This angered A LOT of users. Sometimes you have to make tweaks that will improve the game for a majority of users but might anger 1% of the users. In these cases, the change is worth it because you are trying to improve the game for the majority and hopefully attract new users with those changes. Still, that 1% is out of 1.5 million so yes, thousands of angry users is a result. And sometimes you have to make changes that people will think they don't want, and will insist they hate, but in the long run they will realize that the changes are good. The people that play your game don't see the whole picture, and they just want what will benefit them the best, but social game development is about the whole community and all the people playing at once, and you have to make changes that benefit everyone equally, at the expense of angering a minority. In the end, that minority might come to realize that the changes are actually better for everyone because they might make the game more fun to play, but in the meantime you are going to get some angry complaints.
It takes experience with this stuff to learn these things and I'm learning as I go along… a few months ago I might have said the same thing you did but now I know it's not that simple. Hope that helps.
Change is definitely a difficult subject in UI/UX — not just adding/removing features but how those features are presented. But that's why audience participation in the process is so critical. If they're participating then they know that they'll get their features in too (or just as importantly, they know that they'll NEVER get their feature and to just shut up about it already). Your developers only add features people want and your customers only get features they want. It's deceptively simple (which can be read as "difficult as hell")
Thanks for the reply. I'd be happy to continue the conversation but it's probably best to do that outside of your comments section. Feel free to email me directly if you'd like. I'll tag your blog and check back for new articles. I liked this one a lot.
Thanks!
PS: I'm not sure how to take the bit about experience. Initially, I was offended. Now I'm pretty sure you didn't mean anything by it. I've got about 12 years of UI/UX behind me and I've done work for a few companies you've probably heard of, so… I dunno. I guess I'll just let it go on by.
Oh, I didn't mean experience in that way! I meant experience in building social games, specifically. It's just different from UI, because I'm not just talking about UI features, I'm also talking about underlying game mechanics. Also, I'm not saying I have much experience, just that I'm learning as I go. I mentioned what I did in my post just to write down some of what I've learned in the past few months.
I enjoyed reading about your recent conversion to video game development. As far as your 'stuffy' work 40 hours a week comment - I actually enjoy going to work for 40 hours, because I like what I am learning and I like the people I work with and for. I chose it rather than coding for a much higher rate by myself in pajamas. Reason being is I would probably code myself to death, so many ideas, so many ambitions, that if I let myself loose I would lose touch with reality and work way too hard. The opposite might become try eventually, and I have much to learn from large collaboration.
Your facebook game numbers are impressive - sounds like a fun. In the works is an isometric JavaScript multiplayer game with Facebook integration, at that point where we have something to show should talk more - you probably most likely have some great incite to share.
Marc, you make a great point and I have to admit that eventually I'm going to have to limit myself too because I'll have other responsibilities besides work.
What I was trying to say, though, is that seomtimes you don't have 40 hours of work to do in a week and you shouldn't be forced to sit there at your desk if you don't have work to do. That's the other extreme.
I'll be looking forward to your game with much anticipation. We should definitely get in touch, too; my employer can help you and any other developers get on the fast track to reaching a large audience. And, yes, I have a bit of insight. Just let me know; I'm here to help