next »

[Thaumaturge]

Game-audio artists: If I may ask, how do you feel about people contracting on Fiverr...?

Do the prices there undervalue audio-artists? Or are reasonable prices asked?

And are there other concerns?

[Schoq]

Hi without any particular insight (I'm not a game audio worker or adjacent) yeah fiver represents a global economy race to the bottom where workers have to undercut each other to a point where the hourly pay is just barely justifiable for a skilled artist (or what have you) to pay the cheapest rent.
It results in undervalued artistic work in the sense that the asking prices land at far lower than something a client would have been able to justify pay for, had it been sold for more.
It's a buyer's market.
It results in more people doing telemarketing instead of exploring sonic space.
Capitalism, and a society that thinks art is worthless, is to blame.

[michaelplzno]

I don't want to get into the epic capitalism battle again, but your motto is to "make games not money" wouldn't making money help advance the cause that art is valuable?

[Thaumaturge]

Hi without any particular insight (I'm not a game audio worker or adjacent) yeah fiver represents a global economy race to the bottom where workers have to undercut each other to a point where the hourly pay is just barely justifiable for a skilled artist (or what have you) to pay the cheapest rent.

Having now looked around there, it seems common enough to find offers along the lines of $15 for 5 sound effects (with 1 revision). However, I've also seen high-rated sellers offering 10 sound effects for $100.

Not know what might be a "good" price--is there somewhere that I might look that up?--how does that sound to you?

(I don't know how much time goes into a single sound effect, or what the cost of living might be where a given seller is--especially once exchange rates come into things. As a result I don't have much basis for comparison.

And being myself situated outside of the US, values in dollars mean little to me beyond what they convert to in my own currency (South African Rands).)

As it stands, the former price (~15$ per sound) is... pretty much within my budget, although it gets expensive as the number of sounds to be made increases.

[Schoq]

I don't want to get into the epic capitalism battle again, but your motto is to "make games not money" wouldn't making money help advance the cause that art is valuable?

I think it would show that we value art when it's generally a better proposition for a good artist to just do their thing to the joy of the people who support their endeavours than it is to work for an advertisement agency or to do furry porn commissions. (I'm not the kind of person who should expect or dare I say deserve that kind of support it's not about me). A society where GENERALLY a talented creator has patrons (not necessarily patrons™) rather than an employer or clients. tiny text because this is beside the point of the thread sorry Thaumaturge

Not know what might be a "good" price--is there somewhere that I might look that up?--how does that sound to you?

Again never had to do this professionally (but explored it plenty for fun and interest) but this is a low activity forum so I'll chime in until someone experienced does: it of course depends on what kind of sound effects you need. Assuming I could work twice as fast, and for just serviceable synthesized videogamey sound effects that don't just sound like something random you pulled from freesound.org, 5 sound effects at one revision sounds like about an hour or two of work, at which I would *maybe* accept 15 USD as a supplementary income?
I guess what I'm saying is don't expect too much at that rate, but as I was hinting at before people do stumble on very talented but very desperate people on fiver sometimes and that unfortunately seems like part of the point

[michaelplzno]

I mostly agree with you Schoq, though, I find that making art is something basically every human should find some time to do, like eating, cleaning or pooping. If your time is so tight that you cannot make some art every so often that's a bad sign for the world.

@Thaumaturge I've paid everywhere from $5 bucks a pop for voice acted sound effects that belong in a Disney movie to $50 a pop for bad sound effects I didn't really like that probably came out of a SFX pack. What is fair? I have no clue.

[Thaumaturge]

I think it would show that we value art when it's generally a better proposition for a good artist to just do their thing to the joy of the people who support their endeavours than it is to work for an advertisement agency or to do furry porn commissions. (I'm not the kind of person who should expect or dare I say deserve that kind of support it's not about me). A society where GENERALLY a talented creator has patrons (not necessarily patrons™) rather than an employer or clients.

I think that the difficulty here is that, even if society values art (and I'm not convinced that it widely doesn't--even aside from that fact that there is no one "society", given the range of worldwide cultures and sub-cultures), the work of a given artist may not speak to or be of interest to a significant number of patrons. Thus, while it might be feasible for some artists to do their own thing with the support of patrons, it may not necessarily be feasible for all.

And, well, while I don't know how common it is, there do seem to be artists working via Patreon support, I gather!

tiny text because this is beside the point of the thread sorry Thaumaturge

Why do you hate my eyes?

Again never had to do this professionally (but explored it plenty for fun and interest) but this is a low activity forum so I'll chime in until someone experienced does: it of course depends on what kind of sound effects you need. Assuming I could work twice as fast, and for just serviceable synthesized videogamey sound effects that don't just sound like something random you pulled from freesound.org, 5 sound effects at one revision sounds like about an hour or two of work, at which I would *maybe* accept 15 USD as a supplementary income?
I guess what I'm saying is don't expect too much at that rate, ...

That's fair, perhaps. Still, I've seen what look to be pretty high-rated artists selling at that price.

... but as I was hinting at before people do stumble on very talented but very desperate people on fiver sometimes and that unfortunately seems like part of the point

Sure, and I don't want to take advantage of anyone. Hence my starting this thread, as I recall!

(Although I should note that it's perhaps a little too late now: I started this thread about twenty-four days before the first response, and in that time--having had no argument one way or another--I did actually contract someone on Fiverr.)

I mostly agree with you Schoq, though, I find that making art is something basically every human should find some time to do, like eating, cleaning or pooping. If your time is so tight that you cannot make some art every so often that's a bad sign for the world.

I don't know, people are pretty varied--I could see there being those who simply aren't interested it making art. Each to their own!

[michaelplzno]

I don't know, people are pretty varied--I could see there being those who simply aren't interested it making art. Each to their own!

I'm gonna get a bit judgemental: there are people who pay for everything, getting their house clean, even someone to wipe their ass (probably metaphorically) That's kind of a bad sign for that person. Yeah, I'm sure if I had billions I would hire a cleaning person, but to never have to clean up after yourself? Its an old fashioned idea but it "builds character."

Same thing with art: I know its not like art will be everyone's passion, but the idea that you haven't made ANY art? That's a bit extreme. To me its part of the human experience. Not that everyone has to experience every bit of the human experience. I've never done drugs, some people never have sex, some people never have kids or a pet. I get the idea of different strokes for different folks, but its a pretty wholesome kind of "eat your veggies" experience at worst, usually its much more enjoyable than that. Its an incredibly wholesome way to make you a better and richer person. I do recommend that ALL humans make some kind of art, even though there is no such thing as a universal experience, and we have the postmodern tribal thing that is so popular on twitter. However, yes, I'm sure there are some people who would avoid making art, perhaps with reason, I don't want to neg those people.

[Thaumaturge]

there are people who pay for everything ...

The thing is--and sidestepping any judgement from my side--I don't think that this is (necessarily) the same thing at all.

I know its not like art will be everyone's passion, but the idea that you haven't made ANY art? That's a bit extreme.

Not really, I feel. Uncommon, I daresay, but not at all unreasonable.

You say that it's a wholesome form of human experience--but would it actually be wholesome for someone who simply doesn't have that drive to force themselves to engage in it because they're "supposed to"? Because it's "supposed to be good for them"?

No, if someone simply doesn't want to engage in art, I have no argument with that.

I myself love art, in various forms--but I'm also okay with there being people who simply don't work that way.

[michaelplzno]

I guess I shouldn't judge, but I do think the world would be a better place if more people made art.

[Thaumaturge]

Now that's a more interesting claim, to my mind. Hmm...

For one thing, I think that a lot of people make "little" forms of art: doodles and sketches and impromptu towers of miscellanea, and so on.

But if you mean art that's shown to the broader world... how would having more artists improve things, do you think?

(It does occur to me that it might be helpful for some people who might benefit from "art therapy" of one sort or another, in all fairness; that presumes that such therapy is under-used, which may well be true.)

[michaelplzno]

None of my art has really been seen by a big audience, but I'm told that campaigning for politicians changes your personality. I'm trying my damnest to get my art seen. My theory is that getting major artistic visibility, and feedback, would be a learning experience for most people. (Even for me.) A lot of people don't "get it" in that making something that is seen is more than just putting together some art. To truly be seen is something that 95% of people on this earth never experience, and as a result most people are sort of incomplete as humans.

Gotta go, cat troubles.

[michaelplzno]

Cat likely has a common URI, we've had her a week and already vet expenses lol.

Beyond the personal growth of a person associated with completing the artistic process and having your art be seen. There is also the benefit of everyone seeing more art. That is, I think the intense fighting over movies like the Ghost Busters reboot and the new Super Mario Bros and its lack of authentic magical italian plumbers is indicative of most people being complete strangers to the world of artistic expression, both as critics as well as creators.

So both having people create and having people see more art is valuable. Essentially artistic expression is a form of communication. Even extremely emotional pieces communicate something or its not art its a temper tantrum. Art in my definition I keep pushing is the synthesis of logic and emotion, so having more of it means the world is full of more complete humans who know more about their feelings and thoughts, and other people's feelings and thoughts, and we are all closer to one another.

Just from a completely pragmatic pov, it makes small talk much nicer: If most people have done some art, then most people have something to talk about.

[michaelplzno]

Also, not to grind on my size issues, but who's art you callin' "little?" Even a small statement can be powerful if its meaningful and relevant.

[Schoq]

quick unaudited thought: I think there are roughly three non-monetary ends* to which you can make art and you can do all at once and it's really a gradient:

-for your own joy because creating something and improving is satisfying in itself

-for a group of friends or small community as the audience because we're social animals and it's fun sharing things with other people and contributing towards a little scene that can appreciate and comment on your work (I personally think one of the greatest joys in life is seeing the creative output of people I care about)

-to have as many people as possible see your stuff and become famous because who doesn't wanna be a rock star** (probably unhealthy as the sole goal)


_{*ie not with the motivation to be more free to do other things like pay rent or buy a boat
**I count this as non-monetary even though it can easily bring in cash because supposedly part of this goal is to be able to full time your art and take it to new levels with the doors that open with recognition and financial freedom}

[Thaumaturge]

My theory is that getting major artistic visibility, and feedback, would be a learning experience for most people.

Sure--but so would a lot of other things.

To truly be seen is something that 95% of people on this earth never experience, and as a result most people are sort of incomplete as humans.

... I really don't agree with this.

Or else, everyone is "sort of incomplete", as there are a vast number of experiences out there, enough that it would likely be infeasible for everyone to have a significant time with all.

I see no reason to think that this one experience is more fundamental to being "whole" than a variety of others that exist.

And again, I suspect that there are people who simply aren't interested in making art--and I don't think them to be "incomplete" because they don't want to engage in an activity that doesn't interest them.

Cat likely has a common URI, we've had her a week and already vet expenses lol.

Ah, I'm sorry to read it! But at least it sounds like it's nothing major?

Either way, I hope that she gets better soon (or is better already)!

There is also the benefit of everyone seeing more art.

I mean, there's tons of art out there, I feel.

That is, I think the intense fighting over movies like the Ghost Busters reboot and the new Super Mario Bros and its lack of authentic magical italian plumbers is indicative of most people being complete strangers to the world of artistic expression, both as critics as well as creators.

I suspect that it's more that (some) people get deeply invested in specific worlds and stories--especially those that they experience during certain formative times of their lives. (As is likely the case with a lot of people and either Ghostbusters or Super Mario Bros., I daresay.)

I do think that additional education in art would likely help the discourse over it--but then, the same is true of so many topics...

Just from a completely pragmatic pov, it makes small talk much nicer: If most people have done some art, then most people have something to talk about.

Only if all of those people want to make small talk about art; I imagine that for many it simply won't hold sufficient interest.

Also, not to grind on my size issues, but who's art you callin' "little?" Even a small statement can be powerful if its meaningful and relevant.

No-one's in specific. Look again: I was referring to things like doodles on the side of a notepad, or scribbles made while talking on the 'phone, etc.

Also, note the inverted commas, which I think that I intended to imply that I didn't really consider them to truly be small things. They're still expressions of someone's creativity, after all.

quick unaudited thought: I think there are roughly three non-monetary ends* to which you can make art and you can do all at once and it's really a gradient:

I would agree for the most part, I think--although I suspect that there are likely other ends besides.

Offhand, one additional end that occurs to me is that of making a statement: art as a means of conveying a message to others.

(One could argue that this falls under the second end listed above, but for myself I would distinguish "art as socialisation" from "art as broadcasting".)

[michaelplzno]

To me, the idea of doing what you want and getting rewarded for it *is* Xanadu. That is, the more you behave like yourself and do what you would do without there being a system, the more the system rewards you. So you are not doing it for money, or external rewards, but rather by achieving what you would want to do on your own metric of success you get paid some heap of money to do more stuff of your own design.

Here we have a bar graph of 4 players in the real world, "Reality" and 4 players in "Xanadu" Presumably they all put in their top effort and give 110% but in the real world, only the top player is ranked number 1 and thus only the top player gets the rewards.



Basically I want Xanadu to be a system where forming coalitions that include every citizen of Xanadu is the Nash Equilibrium for strategic players. This is aided by the fact that in computers, resources are not limited, so in my game there will be plenty of food, cars, etc. Xanadu is post scarcity.

I don't know if its capitalism or what, but most artists want other artists to gtfo and get away from them, or possibly if they are really nice work like "Renfield" to be completely subservient to them. That means there must be a systemic change to how artistic rewards are done.

(This idea came to me in a dream where I was talking to Sid Meier and also touring his company.)

[Thaumaturge]

I don't know if its capitalism or what, but most artists want other artists to gtfo and get away from them, or possibly if they are really nice work like "Renfield" to be completely subservient to them.

All that I can tell you is that this has not at all been my experience. *shrugs*

(Certainly, most artists aren't inclined to work for free, but plenty of artists seem to be happy to support other artists, at least so I've found.)

Perhaps this represents less a statement on artists in general than in the circles of artists that we two have experienced.

To me, the idea of doing what you want and getting rewarded for it *is* Xanadu.

Sure, that does sound nice, in and of itself! ^_^

Although it occurs to me that the model that you describe seems to exclude audience interest: audiences are unlikely to be uniformly interested in all potential artistic outputs, which means that--for some forms of reward, including simple audience response--some artistic outputs are likely to receive more reward than others. Even in a post-scarcity society.

And... I really don't want to flatten out the interests of humanity, just so that all artists can get equal interest in their work.

Especially as I feel that there's a large enough variety of interests out there that I suspect that a significant proportion of artistic output has at least some audience out there.

Or put another way, taking that view feels to me like thinking about only the artist's desires, and not those of the audience-members.

Rather, I think that I might like improved ways for audiences and artists to discover each other, such that artistic output does find its audience.

[michaelplzno]

For all I know its some subtle sign I give off that gets people into attack mode. Getting a few likes or retweets from prominent members of the artistic community would be nice just to make me feel like less of a pariah, but one dev I talked to said he "didn't want to clutter his feed." For example.

I'm the common element in all the interactions I've had with artists, and most of them just seem to tell me to suck eggs, sometimes in a polite way. Sometimes I reach out and get no reply. I must be giving off a bad vibe. I wish I had artistic friends, it would be nice. But somehow it just seems impossible.

But my saga to be accepted is getting a bit tiring at this point. I've grinded on it for years now. It does seem you need a formal introduction by someone who is a prominent member of the landed gentry to get anywhere with some artists. Not that artists recognize work that is valuable on its own merits. Whatever, I don't have to waste my time with someone like that who has their head up their butt.

---

I'm probably not fully understanding the implications of a more collaborative process where rewards are shared. I think if you are motivating people to do what they want, you (or the group you are in) should get a bigger reward. Thus, by serving a lot of people and making them want to express themselves and be themselves and do what they want, you and your peers get a bigger chunk of the pie?

I'm still thinking about it, thanks for helping me organize my thoughts.

[michaelplzno]

I guess a big part of Xanadu that is not part of Reality is that agents of the system are charged with getting people to do what they want and be themselves and be happy, thus in Xanadu, essentially the more powerful you are, the more you are systemically required to use your power to cause pleasure and happiness in others. Thus in my game, the player is the architect of a happy society, not really a productive or powerful society. Thus its not a game of producing industry, or crafting fortresses, but rather a game where the player serves a community and caters to its needs.

Still thinking about it, thank you.