James

These are table stakes in tech, but can transform game teams.

And yes, you might take a pay cut. But having done the move, I can say: being happy and excited about what you're building is worth more than another RSU refresh. The industry needs technical leaders who can bridge both worlds.

The skills games needs most from tech:
* Strong people management (not delegated to HR/Ops)
* Cross-functional thinking (breaking down discipline silos)
* Technical excellence mindset (making games faster/cheaper)
* True product ownership (break the diffusion of responsibilities)

Second insight: In tech, I spent too much time convincing myself to care about what we were building (I talked about this last week) In games, that anxiety disappeared. Even on hard days, I know we're creating experiences that bring real joy to players.

First surprise: tech leadership skills that feel 'basic' in Silicon Valley are often game-changers in gaming. Example: I once turned around a struggling project just by applying standard tech roadmapping practices. It became foundational to how we worked, though that kind of work is "not my job".

Maybe a spicy take this week: the game industry desperately needs tech leaders - and those who make the switch often end up happier. Here's what I've learned after moving from tech to games... 🧵

And yeah, that mission t-shirt is probably still in my drawer somewhere

Tech leaders eyeing games: understand this mindset shift before making the jump. It's not just a different industry - it's a fundamentally different relationship with work.

Leading in games isn't about hitting metrics or optimizing workflows. It's about creating space where passionate people can channel their creativity sustainably, all serving players.

There's also this reality: gaming's history with corporate leadership is... complicated. Years of crunch and burnout have left scars. Your MBA playbook? Leave it at the door. You'll need a different approach.

Tech folks are masters of compartmentalization - focusing on their piece, crafting their own narrative about why it matters, playing the corporate game. Games require everyone to see and care about the bigger picture.

Here's what changes about leadership: In tech, I spent tons of energy on alignment and buy-in. In games? That energy is already there. The challenge isn't motivation - it's channeling that passion effectively.

Games? Totally different world. People aren't here for the money - hell, most could make more, or work less, elsewhere. They're here because they genuinely care about what they're making. The mission isn't on a t-shirt - it's in their DNA.

In tech, I worked with brilliant people who delivered great work. But for most of them? It was a job. A good one, sure, but still a job. The annual motivational all-hands with the mission t-shirts? Pure theater.

In games? The relationship people have with their work is fundamentally different, and was my second big skill gap coming in. Let’s talk about it.

People in tech companies don't give a f*** about what they're working on. I've had many people tell me as much verbatim. No judgement from me; it's a job, it pays well, and so few people in this world have the luxury of working on something they care about.

For sure - shiny graphics at least make games (arguably) better, but lots of idiosyncratic (and wasteful) practices don’t

Whether you're a tech veteran eyeing games, or aspiring to join the industry - I'd love to hear your questions about how teams really work. What differences have you wondered about? What surprises you about game development?

The key insight? Success isn't about throwing away tech experience. It's about understanding when to apply it and when to create new approaches. In games, player experience trumps traditional efficiency metrics.

Then there's pure tech teams (infrastructure, build tools). They can move fast like in tech - but even here, everything needs to support both technical excellence AND creative freedom. Their stakeholders are internal; their iteration loops look different than the rest.

Feature teams? That's another world. Some can move fast and iterate. Others, especially core game features, need longer runways. You can't always "MVP and iterate" when you need to get the feel right before players see it.

Pipeline teams (ex: character pods) work on a waterfall with many internal iteration loops. Scrum and milestone planning isn't as useful as Gantt charts and dependency mapping. This work is big and complex, so less agility at the macro scale is appropriate. Still, iterate internally to get it right.

First surprise: game teams aren't one homogeneous group. We're a mosaic of different teams that need different things to succeed. One-size-fits-all processes? They just don't work.

In tech, dev orgs are pretty homogeneous: EM/PM, bunch of engineers, maybe design, maybe a dedicated scrum master. All use some flavor of scrum; some teams might use kanban if the work is typically emergent or unpredictable, others might favor post its and daily planning if things need to move fast.

We recently reorganized our teams on our project, and it drove home a crucial lesson: tech leadership in games requires a completely different playbook. This is the first in a series talking about this hidden skills gap between tech and games - team types, work streams, and how planning goes down.

🎮 “It's just software development with better graphics, right?” Wrong. Tech leadership in games looks deceptively familiar - until it breaks everything you thought you knew about how teams work.

* Human factors - understanding other leaders (and your stakeholders) and their needs, which come from:

* Business context - what external forces are creating the needs, and how can you address them?

I'll ponder on all of this and go deeper in future posts!

I'm going to throw these topics in the hopper to discuss more deeply in future threads. For now, I'll say I see two consistent themes:

Great thread! I can see several different topics in here I can expand on:

* The changing nature of leadership over the lifecycle of a game/product
* Staying up to date as a leader
* Mentorship and succession planning
* "Ego" in leaders
* Challenges advancing after the early career power spike

While I may tell stories set in my current project from time to time, I won't be talking *about* the game on this account. We have some very smart and talented folks who are experts in that sort of thing, so please go find them for news about our game. 😄

What questions do you have about tech leadership in gaming? What would you like to hear more about? Whether you're an industry vet or looking to make the leap to games, I'd love to hear from you 🎮