Regarding the demand for "generalist" programmers, these positions are generally filled in the same way that "entry-level" positions are -- Usually that means someone already at the company "knows a guy" that would be a good fit, or they hit up the local college for grads. Failing that, they always have a entire database full of old resumes from previous applicants. Positions that are posted publicly tend to have been so because no one at the company "knows a guy" that is strong in the area of need and also out of work or willing to jump companies, recent grads just aren't suited, and a quick search of all those old resumes was fruitless. Going through public channels to fill a position can cost 10s of thousands of dollars more than filling it using internal resources, particularly if they have to hire a head-hunter.

Every now and again you'll find entry-level or generalist positions open up, but they're increasingly rare, it seems. When they do, you can be sure that the competition will be fierce.

The best way to break in is to become the guy that someone knows (Either have or make friends in the industry, or get in on a lower rung, such as QA) or try to get an internship.

I got my job as an iPhone / Android Developer by showing my future boss some of the work I did and source code... None of the projects was 100% finished, but I produced Demos which showed my skills and also my passion for programming. I didnt study anything, all my stuff is self taught.. but I love coding and I love to work on projects and I think that is what most HRs are looking for.

In my old work, there was a collegeau of mine who studied Game Design on Master. When i talked to him why he hasnt got a job in the industry, he told me that he hadnt got the time yet to build a portfolio. WTF, ure studying 4 years Bachelor + 1 or 2 years Master and who dont have time? I've worked in an hotel, studied business management besides that AND created a portfolio ..

Thats why i got the job and not he..

I don't think one can say that one is better than the other - there will be different opinions, and I suspect that quality matters more than which you do. I'd also add that having any kind of personal project puts you above someone who doesn't, all other things being equal. (In my experience, they didn't even want to _see_ anything I'd done; just talking about it in the interview was sufficient.)

My argument pro demo rather than full game is a bit stronger than yours. I believe a demo is better than a full game. If I am interviewing a candidate, there's a good chance I will download a tech demo to play with it, and maybe even peek at the code. It's much more unlikely that I would download a whole game and play through it looking for signs of interesting features. No one has the time to go through the source code of an entire game looking for interesting code.

Why do you assume that a game will take longer to download than a demo? Not necessarily. You also don't have to play though the entire thing.

I also think it depends on the purpose. If one is talking about writing something _specifically_ for an interview, then yes, I agree trying to write a whole game is probably wasted effort, as well as over ambitious. But if you already have a portfolio of the completed game, I don't see why that would count for less than a demo.

Imagine if you were hiring a plumber and he said, "Behold! The house that I built with my bare hands!" You'd say "Okay, that's nice, congratulations.. but I kind of just want to see if you're a good plumber. We already have carpenters and electricians."[/quote]I'm not sure that's analogous - in many cases, people are recruited as programmers, and although they may work in a particular area, it's considered useful to have a range of skills.

The analogy would be a working plumbing system, versus a prototype of a single thing, that isn't in itself useful in the real world.