Average paychecks for different posts?

Hello,

I'm going to setup my project on Kickstarter and find some people that will get payed for it.
But I want to know what is average paycheck of different posts.

These posts:
JS Programmer
C# Programmer
3D Artist
Animator
Game Designer
Tech. Game Designer

I bet alot of you have experiences with paychecks.
I just want really average, let's say all of the applicants have basic experiences.
If someone of you, who's reading this are getting moneys what are your paychecks?

Thanks you for all replies!

 

When I am planning budgets for each year, I simply cost an employee at $100k/year. That doesn't mean they take home that money, but that's their salary, computer costs, heating, lighting, drinks and pizza, insurance, office location, etc. Some employees cost more, some less, so $100k is an average. If you are hiring people in different parts of the world, then the costs might be lower, so perhaps $50k. If you are using consultants working from home, then you might not have office and computer costs. It really depends on what you are trying to do.

Pro tip: To be credible on Kickstarter, get a team and start working on a project with no money. Show some of the work-in-progress screenshots, video, web player builds. If you say you want 5x$50k=$300k to fund your game, it's possible the community will say "why should I fund your wages for a year". If instead you said you want small amounts of money to complete the project, if people like the game, then they'll chip in to fund you.

 

Thanks you very much. I'm sure that will helps me alot!

 

Yeah, I wouldn't pay for you to start something from scratch. I'd want to see something playable, a good start on a bunch of actual work towards the end goal (not the kind of stuff you could whip up for the pitch... and I do know the difference), and most or all of the team you'll be doing it with. I want a vision of what the end product will be, and for you to demonstrate that you have a plan on how to get there and a firm grasp on reality in regards to how you will execute that plan.

I also want to see a reasonable funding goal. I don't mean "low", I mean reasonable for the project, and good enough to cover appropriate risks. I'd rather see a high goal than a low one - it doesn't change how much I have to put in, and it reduces the risk of running out of money before you're done. People who ask for too low a figure for their project are epic failing on that "firm grasp on reality".

When you invest into a project it's the team who will make it or break it, so they're actually the most important part of the pitch. Arguably they're more important than the product, because the coolest thing in the world won't succeed if the team doesn't know what they're doing.

And as a final parting note, why should I invest in you if you're not investing in yourself? If you haven't even got something started then you're not really demonstrating your own belief in the project, and you're giving the impression that you don't want to take any of the risk on yourself.

 

$50k or £25k sounds about right to me. That's about the average starting salary for a software developer. But I would expect people in a start-up maybe would want to accept a lower salary topped up with shares in the company. That way if the company takes off they become rich! Also, if they have shares they would put more work in.

Ideally everyone would work for free out of their parent's basements! I don't think the aim of kickstarter is to finance people to have a cosy job for two years. We want you to suffer for your art!

 

First, I don't think that's ideal either from my employee point of view or my employer point of view. Secondly, no, I don't want people to suffer for their craft.

 

Sound advice from Graham.

I'd also give yourself plenty room for error in how long you think your development will take - if it's 6 months, make allowances for at least 9 months, 12 to 18, and so on, and reflect that in your cost forecast. When you're working with new people you can never gauge how smoothly things will run, and even the best funded kickstarters with solid teams run late... so go easy on stretch goals or at least keep them within reason. Don't give yourself another 6 months work for 3 months worth of capital + rewards, and don't bank on being able to hire in new staff to cover the extra work as you go, because they aren't always available (and hiring processes once a job is underway can actualy slow things down further). Keep it simple. And good luck

 

Thanks everyone for their tips. My plan was to make some demo to show it of course.
Thanks you one more time

 

Not ideal. But if you want a cosy job, go work for a bank. That's my point of view. If you want to risk everything making art (which is what computer games are) on an unproven risky venture. Well, a couple of years having to buy own brand supermarket food instead of eating out every night is no bad thing.

Mostly I'm thinking about single or small team indie developers friends. If I sponsored one person £100,000 for one year game and I found out they used all the money staying in the Hilton hotel. I would be pretty annoyed! People in the West have become too use to lavish lifestyles! Perhaps I should give the money an Indian development team and have 20 people working on a game!

On the other hand if I went for a job and the employer offered me a low salary I would be annoyed whether it was a kickstarter or not. But if Zuckerman had offered me £20,000 to work with him on the first year of Facebook with an additional 5% shares in the company, well that would be a good deal right?

 

It's easy to say that's a good deal in hindsight. Typically, though, low-pay-with-options doesn't work out that well because the vast majority of startups never become worth much. (In fact, in some places it's illegal to employ people on those terms.)

The whole concept of pitching low to a) get the money more easily or b) make up for it with significant long term personal sacrifice only seems attractive to people who aren't used to dealing with large budgets. You're still taking on the same liability to complete the same project while giving yourself less resources to do it, and living skinny for an extended period just means you're worrying about how to pay the rent or afford food instead of how to make the best product.

How do either of those things benefit investors in a crowd funded context? Remember that in crowd funding you're not looking for individuals to take on more risk (invest more), you're looking for more people to take on the same, tiny risk. If it's worth $20 to me for you to have a go at making a particular thing, then why do I care if you're asking 50,000 people for $20 or 100,000 people for $20? Either way, I'm still paying $20 in hopes of getting the thing. And if you ask for more people to put down $20, as long as you reach your funding you're in a better position to deliver my thing, which is actually a benefit. And if you don't reach your goal nobody has to hand over their $20, so as long as the numbers aren't stupid it's not a downside, either.

 

I think the point is if you and your friends get money for a kickstarter and spend it all on your salaries for two years. Why would you care if you finished the game or not? You've just been funded to have a great job with benefits for two years. If I knew that they were paying themselves less than what they could get in an equivalent job in a games company I would know that they are putting their money where there mouth is. Because to get pay back they would have to complete the game and sell it.

Hey, you can pay me £100,000 for a year and I'll mine for gold in my garden. Do I care if I actually find any? Hell no.

Pay me £15,000 for a year and I'll make damn sure I'll find gold in my garden if I have to dig to Australia! I need that gold to make a profit! (Or if I don't think there's the possibility of finding gold I wouldn't take on the job in the first place!)

 

Because they're still liable* for completing and delivering on that project. Plus, if all someone wanted was a job there are easier and cheaper ways to get one that would last more than just two years so, just like under-budgeting a campaign, that doesn't really make financial sense.

With regards to the team having their own investment, yes, they absolutely should. In my opinion, though, that should be mostly in the form of a bucketload of work done prior to to the crowdfunding campaign. Like I said before, crowd funding shouldn't get a project started, it should help to improve, complete or commercialise a project that's already underway and showing promise. If you're running a campaign that I'd be interested in funding, you've already got plenty of skin in the game such that I honestly think that underpaying you is more of a risk than paying you properly.

* Granted, so far we've not yet seen any significant negatives to that liability. Perhaps we will with this Yogscast thing?