He may have no where else to go - his skills are specialized to the game industry (I imagine his passion is in play here); his knowledge of C++ might be transferable, but he has no other experience outside of the ten-odd years in the game development racket. What industry would be willing to accept him without the other skills (his web knowledge is weak, for example) he would need to be hired? Furthermore he is at a point in his life where ageism is a serious problem; I am fortunate enough to be in an industry where the wisdom and experience that comes with age is greatly valued; but even *I* - a babe in the woods, as far as programming is concerned - know that ageism is rampant in all tech industries, save maybe game development.

Ageism is a real problem, there are companies who refuse to hire anyone over a particular age, and will fire people once they get older than the younger people feel comfortable.

But you mention a second real problem.

His knowledge is C++, and he has no other experience.

Programmers need to know far more than a single language, and they need to know far more than a single set of tools. I routinely switch in and out of the game industry. My last job was doing a ton of database work. The company had about 5000 people, and had a range from fresh graduates to gray-haired seniors. I went to a retirement party about every other month, something I've only experienced five times in the game industry. The old developers there would tell stories of their days on other projects, working at Word Perfect, working at Novell, working at HP or IBM. At the time, nearly everyone was making the transition from Java and SQL to learning a bit of JavaScript and Angular, and many of the older folks spent a lot of time joking about how it was a new language, people were posting tallies of having worked with 30 languages, 50 languages, even more, and how the new tools were better or worse (often with fun quips) than languages they worked with in decades past. Everybody needed to learn SOMETHING. Unfortunately there were a few people who -- for whatever reasons they had -- refused to learn the new technologies. They were given several opportunities to learn the new stuff, but they complained about how they hated the languages, how it wouldn't work for them and their style, how it didn't let them do their job, and after a series of vocal emails spamming hundreds of people about how unfair it was they had to learn something new, they were fired. I understand one of them tried to make a case that it was all about ageism and was trying to sue the company, but eventually gave up. Jobs change.

Personally I recommend programmers learn at least one new programming language every year.

As analogies, doctors are expected to stay current on the latest rounds of medicine; if they're still practicing medicine as they did in the 1990s they deserve to be fired from a clinic. Lawyers are expected to stay current on the current case law; if they don't learn new precedents and laws as they are created they deserve to be fired from the firm. Mechanics are expected to stay current on the latest automotive technology; if a mechanic refuses to learn to work on hybrid engines these days they deserve to be fired from the auto shop. Generally professionals are expected to do stay current on their own time, or through quietly maintaining their skills through self-training on the job, ordering journals for the office, downloading manuals, and not relying on the business to force you to stay current.

Programmers are not immune from change. In fact, programmers need to re-invent themselves every few years.

If a programmer's only skill is C++ and he has no real skill at the current technologies, that programmer is like the doctor who last read a medical journal decades ago, a lawyer who hasn't kept current with modern law, or an auto mechanic unable to work on computerized engines. They may know things that historically were useful, but they will struggle to maintain a current job for good reason.

Game developers are expected to stay current and to constantly be learning about new tools and techniques. Some of that learning may be sponsored by the company, but as professionals some learning is expected to happen on your own time at your own expense.

What if the candidate didn't have the resources to spend? Are you openly saying the poor aren't welcome into the gentleman's club of game development? That would be refreshingly honest, if cravenly callous. I would think the candidate who spent his last dollar might me a more interesting (and, dare I say it, more passionate) employee than someone with tons of resources to spend who throws their gains around freely with no concern of poverty.

Yes, sometimes a series of unfortunate events happen to people and they are left destitute. Your reply takes it to an unnecessary extreme and sets up a strawman.

Yes, some people run out of money and even become homeless. The expectation of EVERYBODY in that situation is to work through it, take whatever honorable work you can find to get life in order, then get back to the job they want. If that means working multiple jobs, or working a job you don't particularly like, then so be it. I think everyone (including me) can write of times they took jobs that were less than ideal. For me it meant mopping, vacuuming, and cleaning toilets for a few months, but I did what I needed to pay the bills.

Then interview him. Had he the skills necessary to do my line of work to the level that he does yours, I would find a position in my firm. If I had the power, I would make one - in my professional opinion, he's that good of an investment.

Quit advocating for him and have him come here himself, post his resume, and have the discussion.

So far he is just your anonymous friend and we have nothing direct from him. I don't even see where his location on the globe was mentioned.

One last question I want to pose to everyone in this thread:

Is it truly impossible for you to believe that my acquaintance's difficulty getting a job in this industry isn't his fault? Must you insist that despite all of his hard work, poise, determination, and passion that he is still at fault for his own rejection? If you cannot even open your mind to the possibility that the blame for his current state lies outside of him, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

No, and I don't think anyone has claimed that, nor even come close to claiming that.

However, I think we can agree that someone who struggles for an extended time to find a job in an industry should strongly consider the possibility that they need to change something. That may mean learning a new technical skill or learning some new "soft skills" for interpersonal communication.

If what the person is doing is not getting them a job, then they need to do something else.

Again, don't speak for your friend, let your friend come here and speak for himself.

Frob:

His knowledge is C++, and he has no other experience.

From what I understand, he knows many languages - C++ is the only one he mentioned that I was familiar with. I can ask him to list exactly what other language he knows, but from the number of them he is on-track to:

learn at least one new programming language every year.

This misunderstanding is my fault, not his; for that I apologize.

Your reply takes it to an unnecessary extreme

The entire demeanor of this board - and I must assume the industry - takes things to the extreme to the point of self-parody. I almost would think that such behaviour would be the standard.

Yes, some people run out of money and even become homeless. The expectation of EVERYBODY in that situation is to work through it, take whatever honorable work you can find to get life in order, then get back to the job they want. If that means working multiple jobs, or working a job you don't particularly like, then so be it. I think everyone (including me) can write of times they took jobs that were less than ideal. For me it meant mopping, vacuuming, and cleaning toilets for a few months, but I did what I needed to pay the bills.

From what I understand, anything less than a programming job won't pay his bills. There would not be enough hours in the day even if he was awake 24 hours each - he's almost at that point now even in this industry.

Quit advocating for him and have him come here himself, post his resume, and have the discussion.

He has been on this board before (he's the reason I even know about this board) and you treated him worse than you're disregarding him here. If I didn't know better, I'd swear you lot intentionally tried to induce an illness on him - but I know that the real reason you behaved such was the sheer ignorance of what you were doing. In any case, he refuses to come back to this board, and I absolutely support his decision.

And I am not about to reveal any identifying information to you about him or myself.

No, and I don't think anyone has claimed that, nor even come close to claiming that.

We will have to agree to disagree on this.

However, I think we can agree that someone who struggles for an extended time to find a job in an industry should strongly consider the possibility that they need to change something. That may mean learning a new technical skill or learning some new "soft skills" for interpersonal communication.

His primary philosophy is a constant "death march" (that's how he puts it) of self-improvement. He practically re-invents himself every interview. He's constantly learning new things. Just the change from when I first met him to the last time we met is profound. If someone told me that what he needs to do is stand still for a moment, I would be more prepared to believe that than some absurd cry for more change.

Again, don't speak for your friend, let your friend come here and speak for himself.

Not only would I strongly advise him against representing himself on this board, I am seriously wondering if he needs legal representation for this problem.

It would definitely be a change - you have to admit that.

Wow, this started off as an interesting thread and slowly the layers peeled back, we see that the intent wasn't really to ask "is this industry really that hostile?" but to try and assert that it is.

Interviews are demoralising. That's because most people fail them, and it feels personal when a company has said you're not suitable for them. But that's life, in games or outside of games. I had to interview someone the other day - lovely guy, but obviously didn't have the required technical background. I'm glad to say he learned some things during the interview, and we were friendly throughout, but unless the company is feeling very generous then he'll get a rejection letter and feel demoralised. It's unavoidable.

As for passion, that's just supply and demand in action. Nobody is passionate about writing financial software, so companies offer more money to convince people to do it. Lots of people are passionate about games, so the money on offer is less. If you think that's bad, at least you can still make a good living from game programming. Try being a musician today - the passion level is through the roof and the money is through the floor. If we expect passion from our applicants it's because we know it's necessary - partly to fit in with the culture, partly because we don't pay as well as other parts of the tech industry.

And as for "obstacles designed to block him alone"; that is verging on paranoia. I can't think of any reason why I would attempt to stop an individual working in the games industry, and even if I (or my peers) did, we would be utterly unable to coordinate an industry-wide blacklisting of him. If he has failed at a number of interviews then Occam's Razor says the most likely reason is that he lacks one of the key requirements for the roles he applies for. That may be a personal/social issue rather than a technical one. At a guess, it sounds like he has some sort of autistic-spectrum condition which makes him very hard to get on with, but due to our 'ignorance' of this, means we don't accommodate that special need. If so, that's unfortunate, and is going to make things harder in any industry, but not impossible.

But arguing about it in the abstract is not going to yield any results since we don't know him or his skills or the companies he applied for.

Hodgman, I find it telling that between the two possibilities of someone having a friend (after all this, calling him a mere acquaintance seems rude - God knows he could use an ally if this is the battlefield he has to fight on) willing to go to bat for him, and the same person inventing a complete being out of whole cloth, you pick the latter.

Frankly, I don't care what you believe.

For the record, my friend may have leaned more toward a targeted hate, but what I see is just a complete and perfect lack of compassion, to a degree that borders on mental illness. I expect C-level executives to have this level of detachment; but to see the rank-and-file, who could just as easily be the victims of the same events, be so heartless is positively chilling.

So, technically, the field is not actively hostile - it's just so cold, so callous, so indifferent to the demoralisation (thank you, Kylotan) that it creates, that a person who has been abused his entire childhood could be forgiven if he confused such lack of compassion with hostility.

May God have mercy on you all.

So, technically, the field is not actively hostile - it's just so cold, so callous, so indifferent to the demoralisation (thank you, Kylotan) that it creates, that a person who has been abused his entire childhood could be forgiven if he confused such lack of compassion with hostility.

You have strangely conjured up this characterisation based on absolutely no extra evidence. Therefore I am not confident the rest of this will make a difference, but anyway...

"The field" is not a homogeneous blob that acts as one. But neither is the job application process about "compassion" - not in games, not anywhere. 100s of people want each job, only 1 person is going to get it. Disappointment is par for the course. Still, apart from the occasional psychopath like Alex StJohn mentioned above and one out-of-context forum quote you opened with, I'm not seeing much lack of compassion. Just a lack of people saying they'd make a special exception for a hypothetical person none of us except you have ever met, who has a supposed problem that is not his responsibility but everyone else's.

The rest of what you say is too abstract to work with. All I'm seeing from you are intangible "barriers" and alleged "lack of compassion" but no evidence this is the case, nor any attempt to understand why employers might be doing whatever they are supposedly doing. If you want solutions, you need to speak in concrete terms. If you want to rant because a friend hasn't got a job, this isn't the place.

One last question I want to pose to everyone in this thread: Is it truly impossible for you to believe that my acquaintance's difficulty getting a job in this industry isn't his fault? Must you insist that despite all of his hard work, poise, determination, and passion that he is still at fault for his own rejection? If you cannot even open your mind to the possibility that the blame for his current state lies outside of him, then there is no point in continuing this conversation.

There are more talented people who want to make games for a living than there are paid positions for them. You can quite literally do everything right and just be unlucky, and doing anything wrong can be enough to lose out to someone who appears to be a better fit for the role.

And since personal recommendations matter in almost any employment, and "worked with before, would love to work with again" is the gold standard, the better your professional network is, the better chance you have of both getting published roles and of getting positions that are never publicly listed in the first place.

Luck can certainly be a big part of it. But, to invoke Occam's Razor again, if one person is really struggling to get jobs in the industry, it's far more likely that the issue is something about the individual applicant than about every single company they apply to.

(Note that I am not saying it is their fault or that they are to blame - merely that the most relevant and salient factor is likely to be a trait belonging to this specific applicant, not one shared by every interviewer, developer, and industry member.)

1. He says he has "bent over backwards to please people" and otherwise conform to social norms, and to me it shows; ...
2. he might be a little too formal - as the child of British parents (which obviously biases me), I'd say that's the best flaw to have.

1. Personally, I'd say obvious bending over backwards is actually a little off-putting in and of itself. It can make you look like you're desperate or you don't have self-respect. Neither of those look good, except to the kind of manager who would exploit you.
2. Too much formality would definitely be off-putting. The game industry is a pretty informal place. Most of us wear t-shirts and jeans to work. I could see an interviewer seeing this formality, and thinking that the candidate would expect everyone else to be as polite and formal as him, get pissed when they don't, and leave. I've also encountered coworkers who were too polite to the point where their mannerisms come across as fake, and I can tell you that meeting people like that is really off-putting for me.

What field do you recommend a former game developer that has been shoved out of the industry go to?

Aha, the plot thickens. So your friend used to be a game developer, but isn't anymore? What happened? If he really was "shoved" out, it may be that word of him and whatever he did to get "shoved out" has spread...

In any case, someone trying to get "back" into the industry is an entirely different kettle of fish than someone who has always been outside trying to get in for the first time.

What if the candidate didn't have the resources to spend? Are you openly saying the poor aren't welcome into the gentleman's club of game development? That would be refreshingly honest, if cravenly callous. I would think the candidate who spent his last dollar might me a more interesting (and, dare I say it, more passionate) employee than someone with tons of resources to spend who throws their gains around freely with no concern of poverty.

Hardly. A couple of people on this forum have been homeless. They are no less welcome in the industry than anyone else. You mentioned that "time" is a resource. I am simply pointing out that a candidate who sinks time into becoming better programmers are preferable to ones who don't, because the best way to kill a programmer is to stop him from learning new things at the rate required to keep up with the rest of the industry.

Your friend should already know this if he was in the game industry before.

So, technically, the field is not actively hostile - it's just so cold, so callous, so indifferent to the demoralisation (thank you, Kylotan) that it creates, that a person who has been abused his entire childhood could be forgiven if he confused such lack of compassion with hostility.

Are you suggesting that your friend should be hired because not hiring him makes him feel bad? I challenge you to point me at a company in any industry that will hire someone because rejection makes them feel bad.

Rejection sucks. It's painful. But rejection is a part of life and everyone experiences it - sometimes long strings of it. Everyone gets rejected by employers, by potential romantic/sexual partners, even by potential friends. Employers may have compassion for applicants, but compassion doesn't entitle one to a job. Again, your friend should already know this if he was in the game industry before.

Don't forget, also, that when we hire someone, we need to take into account how that someone is likely to fit in with the existing team. If the applicant is qualified, but we have reason to suspect that his presence will be a disruption, then out of compassion for the employees who are already there, and will be affected by the new arrival, don't you think it's pretty obviously prudent to reject the applicant? I'm not saying that's the case here, because you won't post enough information to actually confirm what the problem is.