NYC game development community slowly growing

by Alexander Sliwinski { May 12th 2008 at 5:30PM }

The Center for an Urban Future, a Manhattan-based think tank, has a report on New York's growing games industry. GameDaily reports that Take-Two and Atari, along with 30 game development companies and some 55 firms related to the industry, have a presence in the city that never sleeps. The size of the community is way behind cities like Seattle, San Francisco and LA, but there are approximately 1,200 people working within the industry around NYC.

IGDA Executive Director Jason Della Rocca says that although one would think NYC would be an "ideal place" for game developers, he points out that even Boston has a larger community. He explains that five or six years ago there has almost nothing in NYC, but that some casual game firms and a couple major studios have changed that. (Forgive us for what we're about to write.) So, start spreading the news, game developers are longing to stay. They want to be a part of it ... New York, New York.

Tags: development, game-development, new-york

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

LaughingTarget @ May 12th 2008 5:38PM

I fail to see how it would be ideal. The living expenses alone would submerge most start-ups. Fly-over country is much more ideal. You could pay someone half as much and they'd still have decent living wages. I'm paid half as much for my current job as I would if I took the NYC one, but I actually live better and my money goes further than it ever could there.

Cut wages in half without harming the lifestyle of employees? Why not?

BC_UK @ May 12th 2008 6:00PM

Exactly. I don't think this is an ideal location at all. Look at what happened to the gaming industry in London. Killed by high living costs and other expenses to run a company there like rent, etc. London used to be a hub for game development with tons of smaller studios, start-ups, indies, and of course all the big boys. Only one really left in London these days is pretty much just Sony, and even they have let go a lot of people recently to cut cost.

AoE @ May 12th 2008 7:11PM

Right, but the other side of that coin is: the more populous an area, the easier it will be to find talent to fill required roles. To whit, much of the American game development community is based either here in LA, or up in the SF Bay Area, two places whose cost of living is on-par with NY. Why? Because of the mind share available in the area, and the fact that programmers, designers, artists, etc actually all like living in these places. Which isn't to say that there aren't plenty of talented programmers/artists/etc. in more rural areas... but it's a hell of a lot easier to find multiples of them, enough to build a company with, be able to hire new talent WITHOUT the need to convince them to move, etc etc.

Sure it's more expensive, but the rural vs urban trade-offs for business are much the same as they are for individuals, if not more pronounced. At the end of the day for things like game development, big cities make business much easier.

AoE @ May 12th 2008 7:20PM

Er, that's a pretty big why-not too.. Do you know anyone who lives in a city that would be happy to take a 50% wage-cut to work at a company in a more rural area, even if they were assured complete parity as far as standard-of-living is concerned? I have yet to meet that person... I do know quite a few who were OFFERED just that kind of a package in the middle of the dotcom bust... and they all told the company to fuck off.

the_insider @ May 13th 2008 12:36AM

It doesn't have to be a rural area though. No one said anything about companies out on a farm. But there are cities that have plenty of 'mindshare' that are much more reasonable in terms of living costs than cities like London, NYC, and LA (probably some of the most overpriced cities in the world).
As long as the city has something to offer, a good quality of life, and doesn't require a 50% pay-cut but maybe the same pay instead of a raise, or a minimal cut-back (10-20%) the talent will come to you. You think all those british developers hung around in London after all the developers shut down? No, they are all elsewhere in the world by now. Also, 1,200 employees in NYC the from the 'industry' is peanuts given how many people there in NYC. Look at other game industry centric cities like Vancouver, for example, and compare the ratio of inhabitants to 'industry' people. Now that is a good place to set up shop. ;)

LaughingTarget @ May 13th 2008 6:53AM

It's not like NYC and SF are the only cities in America. I live in Indianapolis, which is highly comparable to the East-West coast city environment but I live better here without giving up any of the city life amenities. I pay $680 a month for a 1,000 squarefoot apartment in a town just outside Indy that is regularly rated in the top 25 places to live in America. I'd have to live in SoHo in NYC to match this area. What do you think a 1 bedroom, 1,000 sqft would run there? If I knew I was staying here long term, I could buy a 3,000 sqft house in the same town and pay that same $680 on a 20 year mortgage.

NYC is old hat, a throwback to the roaring 20s that managed to hold onto its image. Living there is impractical in today's world where communication and transportation is cheap.

BC_UK @ May 12th 2008 6:18PM

Nice avatar by the way LaughingTarget... looking forward to the movie adaptation at all?

Korova @ May 13th 2008 8:10AM

Welcome! Welcome to city 17.

MarMar @ May 13th 2008 9:57AM

To LaughingTarget, et al:

New York City as an ideal location has nothing to do wiht the local talent pool or cost of living expenses for laborers -- labor/talent is not the deal breaker for the corporation, business is. Think of what the most important issues in a media/IP-reliant industry are. New York City is the media capital of the Earth that's simply unmatched in the size, scope, and influence of its publishing, television, radio, and telecom sectors. Before being buried -- and this is the late 1800s mind you -- there were so many telegraphs in Manhattan that you could barely even see the sky walking down Wall Street.

It's also the advertising capital of the country if not the world, with fresh grads from Columbia, Syracuse, etc. going there every year, and just about every big name agency has a presence or headquarters there.

It's just the place to be.

Now I'm sure Indianoplis is a fine city and all, but a post-industrial Great Lake-region city will just never be a modern media metropolis... it's just not going to happen. When's the last time Rochester, Buffalo, South Bend, Erie, Detroit, etc. etc. have been in the national spotlight for anything except the fact that people are fleeing them for the south and west coast? I live in Albany NY just a couple hours north of NY and a couple west of Boston, and even though one would think it would be an ideal place for private industry to set up shop, it just doesn't because it has the stigma of being a corrupt little government town. Reputation means a lot more than people presume, I think...

MarMar @ May 13th 2008 10:07AM

See my comment below, but I just wanted to say that its just a typical minor city vs. major city dichotomy as old as the hills. I don't know about anything that goes on in Indianapolis, but I can tell you that if you live in a minor city like Rochester, NY and you aren't interested in making printer paper for Xerox or cameras for Kodak, you'd better hope fast food pays enough for your low rent big apartment!

During the decline and fall of Rome, Rome was "the place to be" even when its population fell from like 1,000,000+ in Caesar's time to a measily 10,000 or so. Because even though the emperors were hanging out up in Vienna or somewhere in the easy, the city's influence was just timeless. Every rich Roman kid who wanted to be somebody HAD to go to Rome to study if he wanted to be on the A list. Influence just doesn't go away.

New York City was a total rathole during the 70s, before Disney bought the porn shops and peep shows on broadway, but it came back stronger than ever. Buffalo, Pittsburg, Cleveland, etc... Eh... they're still kinda rat holes! As for SF... SF is just SF. Every important tech company there is has some kinda presence there, I mean S. Valley is where it all began.