Why Testing in the Game Industry is Not Really a Great Idea

True Life Anecdote This Week:

It's the last quarter of the year and everyone is in crunch mode right now to get their game shipped in time for Christmas. 

My already employed super groovy, totally knowledgeable candidate who HAS LAUNCHED ONE MILLION GAMES, is interested in exploring a new spot.

He looks at an opportunity, but, before he knows the company's name or speaks with a representative of that company on the telephone. . . 

He is put off by the fact that he'll have to prequalify for an interview by taking a test. 

Solution:

Get on the telephone and get the candidate excited about your company? They are working right now 24/7 till the game is released - you need to hire also - yet your making them take tests?
The smarter companies in our space are just deleting the pre-testing and immediately doing interviews and I am talking major players in our space. They seem to get they need to be aggressive to obtain killer talent yet the bulk of the industry is still requiring testing - still in denial we are in a hiring war and as a result jobs are open for MONTHS.

More solutions: 

• HIRE ME TO MATCH YOU UP WITH THE BEST TALENT
• Get more involved in the hiring process by training your staff to vet an employee by interviewing them first on the telephone before you offer for them to take an exam.
• Romance the candidate a little bit.  Maybe have someone from your company take them out for a drink.
• The game industry is having a problem meeting competition from monster companies such as Google and Amazon were offering better deals to fresh out of college computer programmers.

In the last two weeks alone I have had over 10 A+ level (currently employed) candidates.

As soon as these highly desirable candidates heard that they would have to take a test, they told me, 

"This is a crunch time." 

and they withdrew themselves from the interview process.

Here are some ways that you can succeed and hire the best quality people for your company.

Hire older employees.

Believe it or not, older employees know how to manage their time better and have to spend less time at work completing tasks. Older employees also have a lot more experience in problem solving and younger people who have to work it out and don't have real life experience. I've had a lot of reports that the older an employee is the better at their job they are.

(Read more about the benefits of it.)

Stop thinking you get quality people from posting ads.

If you are looking for quality don't look for the unemployed. People who are already employed and are top-quality (not always the same thing) don't spend any time looking at want ads.  They don't need you you need them.  

(Yes I am aware that some people been downsized and they are good quality people even though there unemployed, however, most companies were downsizing only layoff the A+ talent last.)

While it might seem counterproductive for a recruiter to work with people who already have jobs, 

I do not work with the un-employed or desperate. 

(Except of course I will if I already know a candidate and they have a proven track record or a really cool billboard.)

My belief is why job hunt when you in crisis mode?  - under this situation your freaked out about paying the bills so will accept most any job, thus most likely not make the best decisions for your long term career. If you pro-actively explore when you're happy and love your current job then you will make a solid career decision when exploring other opportunities as you have no emotional attachment to the outcome.

Suggestion number two, stop testing employees and substitute more direct conversations in person and on the telephone.  

If you have to test, wait until you've spent time getting to know the candidate.

Tests were annoying and school their annoying now and did they really measure what you know were they relevant to you?  Wouldn't you rather have proved yourself by designing a game?

Most top candidates are annoyed by having to take a test why start a relationship by annoying your possible partner?

Employed people don't have time to look at want ads nor do they have time to go to your place sit down and take a test that they find demeaning because they already can do the job. You're taking a shortcut around having to spend time with the candidate and actually speak with them by giving them a test. This might give them the impression that their time is not valuable to you.

The candidates I present are happily employed thus do not have time nor the desire to test. 

How about getting on the telephone and get the candidate excited about your company before throwing a test?

Here are a couple of reasons why testing sucks.

Many of the questions on these tests focus on trivia about computer science. 

Here's a question answer it fast,

"What is the Singleton Theory or how do you reverse a string?" 

This is stuff a programmer learns in computer school 101 and is absolutely worth less as a way of evaluating a person who has worked in the industry for a few years and obviously coming from a known game entity with products sold on the market.

You don't want to know what the person was able to memorize. . . you want to know how a programmer thinks and goes about solving a problem. 

If you have to test someone develop a better one.

Artists - most companies give them an art test despite many years of prior experience with products on the market. Again this is foolish! The art tests are very time consuming and again a happily employed A+ Artist does not want to take a test - it's almost insulting.


I certainly get testing folks transitioning into games from another industry. I certainly get testing new graduates with little work history. But to insist that every candidate who is explored gets tested despite several years already working in the industry is a practice that must stop.

We are in a hiring war for most all talent sought by our industry and to ask a person with several years of experience already under their belt is an annoyance and will not get you the best talent.