On the one hand sure that would help him get into the industry, but on the other hand that can be the quickest way to tank both his enthusiasm and work quality.
Stellaris has hired modders before and the quality of their work plummeted because said modder was no longer the one in charge of both production quality and pace. Now they had someone in a management position stating what was to be done and how quickly.
They're actually really disruptive in a classical "monolithic deliverable" development ecosystem where you have a lead architect and a swarm of implementers.
Simply put, they think too much. They're good at agile, great at microservices, but a nuisance otherwise.
I would have at least offered the guy a job for fuck's sake lol I just think it's cheeky they pay him that little given the type of game breaking bug it was and the fact that it was such a silly mistake. If they put him on a proper salary and everything he'd probably find all sorts of crap the previous developers left lying around.
So the role you want him in is QA? In that case the payout was great that he got. xD
More serious though, Do we know if he was offered or not?, Were their negotiations about the bugfix pay? Or did the dev release it freely and they then were good enough to pay afterwards?
And just basing his ability to fix a major bug on whether not to employee someone, is a bit iffy, only reason it works todays market is that all other metrics are really shit which means most employees are shit.
I know I'm the one that brought up GTA but terms of revenue one of the biggest things that turned me off from GTA Online was the awful matchmaking. It wasn't even necessarily their design, there were just so many obvious oversights with the code like how to deal with players disconnecting and things like that.
This paragraph is a bit halfbaked, so pardon if something is misunderstood.
The role you want is more dev lead and architect which is once more not something i can determine is suited for the bug fixer.
Other than that it just a rant about the qualitative of their product which I do not understand still why they should be paying more based on their revenue.
As long as the bug hunter got the choice whether to hand over the fix or not and thus be able to decide if the offer was good, I'm happy.
Actually a good bounty for a bug fix. Somewhere in the ballpark of 1-2 months salary for a full timer.
So you should pay in proportion to your means? As mentioned above that is quite a good price for a bug-fix.
And how would you measure the exact revenue created? I don't know the details on this story but was the dev required to hand over the fix?
On the one hand sure that would help him get into the industry, but on the other hand that can be the quickest way to tank both his enthusiasm and work quality.
Stellaris has hired modders before and the quality of their work plummeted because said modder was no longer the one in charge of both production quality and pace. Now they had someone in a management position stating what was to be done and how quickly.
Enthusiasts don't make good team members.
They're actually really disruptive in a classical "monolithic deliverable" development ecosystem where you have a lead architect and a swarm of implementers.
Simply put, they think too much. They're good at agile, great at microservices, but a nuisance otherwise.
So the role you want him in is QA? In that case the payout was great that he got. xD More serious though, Do we know if he was offered or not?, Were their negotiations about the bugfix pay? Or did the dev release it freely and they then were good enough to pay afterwards?
And just basing his ability to fix a major bug on whether not to employee someone, is a bit iffy, only reason it works todays market is that all other metrics are really shit which means most employees are shit.
This paragraph is a bit halfbaked, so pardon if something is misunderstood.
The role you want is more dev lead and architect which is once more not something i can determine is suited for the bug fixer.
Other than that it just a rant about the qualitative of their product which I do not understand still why they should be paying more based on their revenue.
As long as the bug hunter got the choice whether to hand over the fix or not and thus be able to decide if the offer was good, I'm happy.
Take-Two's return on equity over the last ten years is barely above the average of the whole market.
And their 2023 numbers were shit terrible, lost a billion dollars.