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.
Please tell how the developers of the unreal engine is thinking. I have not developed the skill to understand thought from code yet.
The point is this guy solved a major bug and I consider $10,000 to be a bit of an insult given the scale of the problem and it clearly was overlooked for years
So a major bug, that the product could live with for years and still be functional (I know functional is always weirdly requirement especially with modern games)? How much should a corporation pay for such a bug fix? a years salary?
What incentive structure would you entail that would not make it profitable to create bugs?
Once more, did the devs force the bug hunter to hand over his code?
Aka, did they made an offer he can't refuse?
Do you have the source for the source code pre fix? I would like to read this in its entire context.
Call me crazy but I consider QA and dev work to be one in the same
Devs can do some QA in the same way that devs can do some UI design but QA is a completely separate skillset. They are not the same job.
Good QA people are some of the best people to have on your team. Fortunately bad QA people are mostly just useless so they aren't an active detriment to productivity.
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.
Please tell how the developers of the unreal engine is thinking. I have not developed the skill to understand thought from code yet.
So a major bug, that the product could live with for years and still be functional (I know functional is always weirdly requirement especially with modern games)? How much should a corporation pay for such a bug fix? a years salary? What incentive structure would you entail that would not make it profitable to create bugs?
Once more, did the devs force the bug hunter to hand over his code? Aka, did they made an offer he can't refuse?
Do you have the source for the source code pre fix? I would like to read this in its entire context.
Devs can do some QA in the same way that devs can do some UI design but QA is a completely separate skillset. They are not the same job.
Good QA people are some of the best people to have on your team. Fortunately bad QA people are mostly just useless so they aren't an active detriment to productivity.