The Poor Marketing of Train2Game
I’ve just returned from Develop and I’m in such a stomping rage that I’m actually going to update my blog rather than my Twitter feed.
I better preface the rest of this post by saying that I 100% back the work by the likes of TIGA and Skillset to improve the education of those entering the game industry. However, TIGA’s endorsement of distance learning course Train2Game really bothers me now that I’ve read their “Study Guide” brochure, handed out to us at the Develop conference this week.
I’m going to provide a few tasty quotes for you to get your claws into. They are so jaw-breakingly awful than I almost don’t feel the need to comment on them because others will do a far better job. Before I set on, let me remind you that TIGA’s endorsement is about improving the quality of those entering the industry.
“…, until now, your only way into the business, if you were starting from scratch, would be through academic study on a 2 or 3 year university course, then you have to look for a job as a games tester and then spend the next few years learning the hands-on stuff working your way slowly towards the job you really want.”
That’s funny because the entire point point of all the university game-related courses is to avoid exactly this situation. Some manage it, some don’t, and it still depends on both the graduate and the state of the industry, but the above statement is just absolute rubbish.
“The Train2Game method of learning has been created so that nearly anyone can do it. In fact, this system is so directly geared towards the needs of the games companies that the industry bodies are now recommending to their members that they recruit from Train2Game graduates! They are so keen to have people equipped with just the right skills that we’re confident you’ll go straight from finishing your training to your first job as a developer. You might even find yourself with a choice of opportunities!”
I honestly see this is as straight forward miss-selling of the qualification considering it’s not even a degree equivalent and is a new course. However, I accept that other academic institutions come out with similar trash.
What I particularly object to is the “anyone can do it”. I don’t want “anyone”, I want suitably educated talent. As a developer who wants to see the best graduates, a course which “anyone” can do is not going to inspire confidence. My initial reaction was compounded by something else, which we’ll get to later.
“Why Train2Game? Our courses are aimed at anyone who has a great game idea, but who lacks the opportunity, skills or experience to be able to turn their idea into reality. We are the experts on the ‘inside’ and in unique and interactive ways we will help you pick up everything you’ll need to realise your dream. This is a complete system aimed at ‘ordinary’ people and written by actual game developers!”
Once again, straight forward miss-selling and yet more “anyone” can do it type stuff. Who are these “ordinary” people? Why are they making out that game development is some big secret when more people seem to be doing it than ever?
“Only very basic computing knowledge is needed… some of the concepts can be picked up more rapidly if you do have prior gaming experience, but it is certainly not essential… We have worked hard to demystify this often shrouded topic so that you can achieve the best result possible!”
Ah, I see, it is a big secret! Perhaps Train2Game aren’t aware of t’Internet and the myriad of amazing game development sites and software targeting everything from beginners to experts. That’s not to dis this course, but I object to the blatant and deliberate ignorance of what’s out there. Once again, I take this as a way of targeting people who are probably not going to cut the mustard anyway, and then you have to ask why TIGA are endorsing this course (as Train2Game go on and on and on about).
“Unlike other courses, our courses are written by gamers for gamers. They contain a wealth of invaluable information you are very unlikely to find in an ‘ordinary’ programming and design books.” - Their dodgy grammar, not mine!
At this point I started laughing. Out loud.
By gamers? I thought we were game developers. A quick search on Amazon reveals numerous game development books covering a wide range of content. I believe I’ve already pointed out this t’Internet malarkey but Train2Game seem to conveniently ignore this rather useful resource, except where it suits – they being a distance learning qualification!
“There are no restrictive entry requirements for any of the Train2Game courses… Using the very latest in assessment technologies they will quickly prepare a personalised study plan for you.”
May I suggest, dear reader, that we all submit an application to see what their “latest assessment technology” can do for us?
“In the unlikely event of you failing to pass the examination and provided you have carefully followed the instructions of your tutor, you may retake the course entirely free of charge.”
WOW! Gobsmacked! So basically you can’t fail. If anyone can do the course and anyone can gain a pass, what do I actually learn about my prospective employee/colleague/(tester!)? Ok, yes, I’m aware that universities these days barely fail anyone either although I do at least see lots of grades and can sometimes value the university and course itself.
They will have created some demos on the course which I know is a good thing, but I’m not seeing any suitable confirmation of difficulty or ability in the way the course is being presented.
Perhaps I’m being over harsh but there is an important point here. Regardless of the merits of the course content, and I want more developers to see it first hand so it can be suitably critiqued, I’m not sure TIGA should be allowing a course they have backed to be promoted in this way. It feels like Train2Game, quite frankly, are taking the piss.
I want good quality graduates to have come from properly approved courses. I want the good people at TIGA and Skillset to ensure that course contents are suitable for our needs and will make a real difference.
TIGA should not allow the Train2Game course to be sold in this way and it should be made clear to the development world at large what this qualification actually means so that we can judge candidates accordingly. The “Study Guide” brochure provided at Develop was not the way to do it.
Train2Game may prove to be a valuable addition to the various game courses in the UK but if it’s industry backed then it should function alongside the existing courses rather than making overblown claims. Meanwhile, I’m sure there are a few university course administrators as unhappy with the Train2Game marketing as I am.
EDIT: So Train2Game, or at least the company administrating it, have just tried to sue Google over Train2Game bad press simply because Google searches show people’s complaints. Thankfully they lost the case but it puts things in a different, darker perspective for me.
I’ve also had feedback already that others in the industry are questioning the merit of both the course itself and all that surrounds it. This is something that needs addressing for the sake of both the students, those who have undoubtedly put some serious time and effort into creating the course, and the development community who must, after all, be on side in order for it to be worthwhile.
Tags: skillset, tiga, train2game
Nice overview, I can well understand why that’d get you hot under the collar. There was a topic on YY a while back over it where I found the whole thing equally befuddling.
Anyway, bunged in for the info pack. Should be fun.
Wow. I tried to corner them at develop, as a games programming lecturer myself I was interested in discussing their curriculum. Booth was too busy so I didn’t have a chance to talk to them, and by the sound of it that was for the best as it would likely have descended into an embarrasing public argument.
I always ensure potential students understand some painful realities, namely that programming games is pretty damn hard work. Unfortunately there are no shortcuts to becoming a good programmer. You wont get far without a solid understanding of comp sci, maths and physics.
Anything where you can’t fail is worthless as a qualification.
Anything that lets you re-try for free if you do fail is taking your money and giving you back nothing.
“In the unlikely event of you failing to pass the examination and provided you have carefully followed the instructions of your tutor, you may retake the course entirely free of charge.”
Well that says it. As you point out, you can’t fail. Which makes this course worthless as a qualification.
This course seems aimed at people with little confidence in their abilities to learn using the resources that are out there, and little initiative.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9tI0MyqSyg
Please stay and read the High Court judgement
Regards
Hey Sillytuna, its hyped marketing for sure – and I’m not up for it either. Just like all the other courses I looked at. Its all PR. Whats fact and whats fiction. What bugs me tho is your being elitist like its only for select few. ok I want a job – so you want me to fight for a place at your shop – knowings not good enough for you eh? its 2009 not 1909. lets give it to the americans instead right?
Ali, the game industry is full of people from all sorts of backgrounds so it certainly isn’t for a select few. However, it isn’t an industry for which “anyone” can do a course and then be suitably qualified and deserving of a job.
Whether you do this course or not, you need to have the creative and (usually) technical brain as a starting point. Many people think they are creative or think they can code, but they simply aren’t good enough to work within games. You wouldn’t expect “anyone” to do a distance learning course then be the doctor treating you in hospital just because they got a certificate on a course which you could barely fail. We’re not doctors but we have entry standards too.
It’s very competitive, you need to be good, and the point of the courses is to improve the quality of those entering the industry as well as to give options to those who didn’t attend uni for one reason or another. The later are going to find getting into games very hard but the truth is that just having 1-2 good demos is a massive help, course or no course.
For people with a T2G qualification I’m still going to look for the same things. I’m still going to look at the academic qualifications and I’m still going to look at their demos (most important thing) and I’m still going to judge their personality. AFAIK T2G has been designed with this in mind so I’m not going to be critical of the course at this point.
Going back to your comment, the Train2Game marketing implies anyone can do a course and get a job or write a game but that simply isn’t true. This is not fair on the students who have to pay around £5000 for the course. Whether it’s good or not, it’s not going to land many people a job.
The fact that it has no entry requirements and that it’s being sold in such a way, very obviously aiming at people who are perhaps unemployed, have no relevant qualifications, or just like to play games – that’s not fair to me. It’s too much money to pay out when even an awful lot of graduates can’t get a job, at least if you don’t understand how difficult developing games can be.
If you think that is elitist then so be it, but 1) we’re going to disagree and 2) I can tell you that the above goes double if you’re getting into the industry in America.
I got screwed by Train2Game, I agreed to sign up but they used my old home address for the loan because I had only been living at my new adress for three weeks. I questioned him on this and he said it means nothing. Next thing after the loan is finalised he tells me the option to pull out of the course will be mailed to my old address and I need to contact Royal Mail. Now they won’t let me pull out even though I never started their worthless course AND I returned the course materials! Oh well I’m leaving the country soon hopefully my credit rating won’t be affected in….. (NOT TELLING I BET THEY ARE READING THESE POSTS)
Paul, I strongly advise you to take care of this properly, leaving the country or not. You can find advice on the Consumer Forums and you should contact both T2G and the loan provider (CDF?) directly, politely and keeping a record of everything.
If you or others are not happy with your treatment then please also contact TIGA through their website since they have endorsed the course. You should then also contact trading standards and possibly the FSA, ensuring you have all relevant evidence for your complaint.
It’s important to differentiate between the course itself, the way the loan has been sold to you, and the loan provider as they are all – legally speaking – different companies.
Here is a thread featuring others who’ve had issues:
http://www.consumeractiongroup.....train.html
I am hopeful that you can resolve this problem amicably.
Hi all
I’m posting here to make a few points more clear
Ben: I was on the stand for most of the show and would have happily discussed our courses with you, indeed we spent a great deal of time talking to several lecturers and Uni’s with a totally open attitude and the offer of sharing information re all of our course material. Those who took the time to see us we’re remarkably excited about what we are doing and were very keen to interact.
We know that our content is in many cases more up to date and relevant that many of the current Com Sci courses and are keen to share what we have as we don’t see Universities as competitors at all, if students are able to go into full time education we encourage that wholeheartedly.
If you’d like to chat about what we do I’d be more than happy to take your call.
Andy P (and Alex really): at no time do we imply ‘a guaranteed pass’, we merely offer exactly the same as every college, school and university; the ability to re-sit. The difference being, we don’t charge for re-sits. Andy; I can’t agree that “anything free is taking money and giving nothing” that statement makes no sense to me. I have to say, I felt this part of the guide was pretty clear in the wording but accept that there are some who feel its too ‘marketing oriented’ so will change the text to be more specific.
Jim: where does it say ‘you can’t fail’ or even imply that? Surely as in all FE, if a student fails he/she recognises the need to seriously reconsider then, either, work really hard or withdraw. I don’t understand why there are such animated responses here when we all seem happy to accept the exact same process in any other form of learning (albeit we don’t charge for it).
Paul: I’m sorry to hear about the issue with your Course advisor and ‘old home address’ Please contact me at the office 01908 39 38 37 or via the forum: forum.train2game.com and I will resolve this issue immediately. Alex is right; do not shoot off and leave this unresolved as it much easier to fix while its all current. There will be no problem at all in taking you off the course and removing any finance issues.
Ali: your point re ‘Elitism’ is one of the core reasons we started down the road of T2G, I really dislike the way in which we have become so elitist in getting and giving roles. We’ve even been told that as T2G we are not allowed to use the term “graduate/graduation/graduated/graduates/etc” as this can only be used for people completing ‘degrees’; Elitism gone mad? Our role in all of this is to increase the resource available to the games industry, as a game development employer, I’m not at all concerned at the actual qualification, rather I want to see a portfolio that is current, relevant and of top quality. I want employees that can hit the ground running, grow with the company and work well in a team, all Dev teams want that too. Pandering to 2;1’s from Oxford in this day and age is plain and simple snobbery
Overall, as I said to Alex, we are a new course and just like every other learning institution, needed to build awareness, we’ve achieved that very well but I do accept that we allowed our marketing oiks to free-a-reign. We are reworking all of the initial content (not the courses as we are very pleased those and are getting the same feedback from our many students.
I just want to thank Clive for coming on and addressing some of the comments above.
My issues with TIGA’s endorsement(at such an early stage) and MIS’ practices still stand, but I appreciate the efforts put into the course itself.
For me, TIGA’s approval should also cover the way the course is pitched, confirmation that the cost is made very clear in all literature, and the loan should be provided by a completely independent company and not pushed on to students. For legal reasons I’m not going to expand on this later point and nor am I going to discuss it, I just believe it to be a fair requirement for TIGA’s approval.
I disagree a little with the elitism comment Clive – I and many others find academic qualifications a useful guide to potential. However, I appreciate that they are not the only guide and degrees are a long way from being equal. Sadly this is a problem across UK degree level education these days.