130°

Unionization supported by almost half of game developers, survey reports

GDC survey shows support for a game developer union, with 47 percent of respondents saying they support unionization, and a further 26 percent answering "maybe."

Read Full Story >>
gamerevolution.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community2332d ago
Fist4achin2332d ago

This can be a good thing considering how hard development teams are pushed sometimes by the executives. Execs don't care about quality so much as their money to be made and rushing out unfinished and buggy products.

Eonjay2332d ago

Considering some of the crazy stories we get they probably need it more than we realize.

rainslacker2331d ago (Edited 2331d ago )

More likely it just means that more people will be hired on as contractors. Union shops and non union shops would make it difficult for contractors to work between them, limiting their choices during the inevitable lay offs, and studios can't employs a full compliment of developers over the whole development process withing the cost of production going up.

On top of that, game developers can want this if they want, but the studio would have to recognize the union as a party working on behalf of the employees for them to mean anything. Strikes can force this, but if they're contractors, it means they can be sent on their way, with no actual financial harm to the company, since they won't have to pay unemployment on those they let go.

What is most interesting though is that given the nature of the workforce now, that they would even need a union. There is a severe shortage of qualified labor in the game industry. It's pretty much a employees market right now, and it's easy to negotiate a better salary. A union would make things more standardized on that front, which means it's likely that the overall average salary will go down, because dev houses aren't going to pay more than they have to, or more than they feel someone is worth.

I often wonder if people really realize that a union in the gaming industry isn't going to help them that much. If anything, it's going to make it worse, because deadlines still have to be met to get those bonuses or next phases of money to pay the devs themselves. Unions can slow things down, and if that happens, it means devs can be forced to shut down because they underperform. It's a dangerous situation to be in, because unionization would effectively shut down much of the industry, and in the process of working out the kinks, quite a few devs would be in danger of failing.

Unions will not improve the quality of games. Better management will do that. But even the best managed studios have a lot of wasted time and sometimes harsh hours. But I think much of the bad stuff is overblown, or anecdotal, as poorly managed studios where this is most a problem, tend to go under anyways.

bluefox7552332d ago

Good luck with that, they'll just fire them and hire a new batch that are willing to work without a union. Unless they're in one of those states that doesn't let people choose to opt out. Unions these days often do very little for the employees outside of lining the pockets of the union bosses.

Mulletino2332d ago

And funding the DNC. These journalists will also get to write about the long development times and increased prices. Win win.

Smokehouse2332d ago

That 47% are the easily replaceable. Just sayin..

Eonjay2332d ago

Do you really believe that it is easy to replace half of your workforce?

Smokehouse2332d ago (Edited 2332d ago )

Depends on the job. It costs a lot more to train and hire but if what you have isn’t working sometimes you don’t have a choice. Yes it’s done all of the time, the turn around in my job would make your head spin. I have been at my job 5 years and I’m veteran status lol.

rainslacker2331d ago

I wouldn't say easily. There is a severe shortage of qualified labor in the game industry. Good devs can draw good people in, but they usually pay more because they have to, and generally, working conditions are better anyways.

It'd mean there would be more contract labor, and that would pretty much kill the unions, because the contractor would have to decide if they want to join the union to work in a union shop, but that would mean they couldn't work in a non-union shop, or the union fines the member. Stupid I know, but that's how it works. If the studio hires a non-union worker, the union fines the business, or makes such a fuss, that it becomes annoying. Stupid, but that's how it works.

Unions would be extremely disruptive to the industry. While I can see why some developers feel it would improve their work life, it probably wouldn't. Game production and funding is based on meeting milestones. Unions would likely slow down the game development process, which means more money would be required at each milestone because the milestone would have to be extended, or you'd need to hire more workers(which may not get things done quicker).

Smokehouse2331d ago

Well said. It’s the same in most industries.

doritos2332d ago

Haha, you go right on ahead with that, and let us know how it works out.

Cobra9512332d ago

It should really be a guild, like the writer's guild in Hollywood. Regular workers are easily replaced. True talent is not. Once a guild takes hold, it ideally can extend down the ranks. That way, the workers can negotiate with the big companies on more equitable terms, as one bloc.

As a veteran of software and game-tech development, I can confirm that the abuses are real. The only way to curb them going forward is to give those affected a greater say in their fate. Clearly, government isn't going to step in to help.

Mulletino2332d ago

“Clearly, government isn't going to step in to help.”

Which is why I love this country. Everything outside of defense that the government touches turns to crap. People need to quit relying on authoritative power so much. Produce a more attractive alternative and make a few bucks.

TK-552332d ago

"Which is why I love this country. Everything outside of defense that the government touches turns to crap. People need to quit relying on authoritative power so much. Produce a more attractive alternative and make a few bucks."

I think that's far too broad a statement. There are times government is necessary and times where it should have minimal influence. To give an example one of the only things that can protect net neutrality is government influence.

The US is ranked number 28th in mobile internet speeds which is kinda depressing once you see that Greece, Kenya and Indonesia are all ranked higher.

Smokehouse2332d ago

The talent can negotiate for themselves. I have always lived in a right to work state so I’m used to the cutthroat nature of it I guess.

If some lazy asshole negotiated his way to my pay through a union while I work my ass off I would be pissed. I would quit and what are you left with? Overpaid lazy assholes who will run your business into the dirt. The talent will always go where they are appreciated. Game quality will take the hit and then everyone is out of a job.

TK-552332d ago (Edited 2332d ago )

I know you're in the US but in the UK I used to work at a supermarket and the union fee was £2.50 a month. Hardly a lot to pay to have my holiday entitlement and pay protected, and legal representation should I need it.

Smokehouse2331d ago

We have labor laws that take care of that stuff. I shouldn’t be charged for basic workers rights. If a company screws me all I have to do is call the better business bureau and see what my options are. I have no problem paying for a good lawyer if I have a solid case. Most of them will just take a percentage of the settlement.

In my experience the business doesn’t screw people though. If they try it doesn’t last long lol. I get 20 days vacation a year and they wouldn’t try to screw me out of it. I’m not a slave and I have resume that allows me to move freely. I can pack up my shit and say “see ya” anytime I want, especially now in this economy. You don’t screw your workers if you want to keep them, only dumb business does that.

rainslacker2331d ago

@TK

My understanding of the UK, and the EU, that most of those things are protected through labor laws.

That said, the 2.50 a month is a pittance compared to what some unions charge here in the US. My cousin got a factory job a few years ago for a car manufacturer in Ohio, and he had to pay $100 a month. It was the kind of job he was just there and would eventually get paid off, but for where he lived, you take what you can get. The unions weren't going to protect his job any more than the state could, because the labor laws in the US can be hit or miss depending on state, and it doesn't usually cover lay offs anyways. He worked there for 8 months, then was laid off....as expected. Union got him a one week severance package, which was about what he paid into the union to begin with. Except he had to pay taxes on that money.

Unions can be good, but a lot of times, they aren't. There are times where there is real abuse, but a lot of times now, unions just slow things down, and make it more expensive to make products, which is one reason a lot of companies are going overseas. For a $20/hr factory worker, they likely could find people to do it for $10-12, but the union won't allow that. But the unions act like they are in charge, because there is this mentality that the worker is in charge. That isn't usually the case, because the worker only has control over themselves, and choice should dictate the market. In a place where labor can be hard to find, wages are going to be higher. Where he lives, they're higher because of the unions, not because its hard to find people. It'd be harder to find people if they didn't pay as much, so they'd naturally adjust.

This isn't like the 60's or before, where companies played more off the depression era ideas that any money is good. It's the age where people have to make a living wage, but the markets don't want to pay more for their products, so as the union and workers demand things which don't line up with the market, it makes it harder for these companies to compete.

With gaming, there are a slew of issues that will come along with unions, and for the way games are financed, it could mean the death sentence of a studio if the union decides to start flexing its muscle, because they're going to do this when the studio is the most vulnerable, which is going to be right around milestones, which is when new funding gets added to actually pay the workers. Then you have the whole union/non-union shop issues which make it more difficult for contractors. Since game makers tend to be well paid, dues are likely to be higher, so effectively, they have to pay the workers more to get the same, so the only one's really coming out ahead are the unions themselves.

@Smoke

While business shouldn't screw their employees, as the employees are vitally important to a company, many companies also know that there is an available work force if some people decide they don't want to work there.

The labor force across all the gaming industry is in a situation where they have more control because there is an extreme shortage. That pretty much removes the need for unions, as bad developers are going to lose people mid-production and attrition should take care of itself. For most people in the gaming industry, it's more about just deciding to move on, and I find the people that are most unhappy with their jobs, they tend to be unwilling to do better for themselves.

FalconofLucis982332d ago

but writing in Hollywood is fucking trash, clearly this isnt even working

rainslacker2331d ago (Edited 2331d ago )

I've seen abuses, but I think they're overblown by the media.

That said, it's pretty easy to negotiate one's terms of employment in the industry right now. Anyone accepting the first offer is doing it wrong. The first offer is low, because studios expect you to negotiate. Unions would likely try to standardize pay scales, which just isn't reasonable given the huge disparity of talent and experience within the industry itself.

As far as the rest of the working conditions go, what can they negotiate? A job has to be done, and milestones have to be met to get the next phase of funding, which goes towards salaries and other things needed to make the game. Without that funding, production stops, and without money, people aren't getting paid. It's the choice between working to get things done so one can get paid, or arguing over working, while also still not getting paid. Investors aren't going to keep funneling money into a project because the workers are negotiating terms halfway through production, and threatening to strike if agreements can't be made.

Unions would effectively slow down the production process, and likely cause many developers to shut down, because I can't see how its sustainable within the game industry. I know unions want in, because there is a lot of money to be made, but I think that the people who say they want a union, or are willing to have one, don't realize it just isn't going to work the way they hope. They're basing it on emotional decisions drawn from how annoying it can be right now, but don't really think it through to its logical conclusion.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2331d ago
Show all comments (25)
40°

Find or Be Found: Making Burglary Horrifying • VGMM

Find or be Found puts players in the roles of desperate thieves robbing haunted houses, with one player infiltrating the building while their partner guides them remotely through cameras and a radio. The twist: you're not just avoiding security systems, but supernatural monsters that want you dead

Read Full Story >>
videogamesmademe.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community3d ago
290°

The Real Enemy of Gaming Isn’t DEI. It’s the CEO

From Horse Armor to Mass Layoffs: The Price of Greed in Gaming. Inside the decades-long war on game workers and the players who defend them.

Read Full Story >>
rushdownradio.net
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

✔ Fixed
Bad Editing
site name in title is only for reviews/previews, please remove
Emilio_Estevez6d ago WhoDisagree(0)Agree(0)
+ Updates (2)- Updates (2)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community5d ago
Changed: title
jambola6d ago

maybe a real enemy is people who use terms like "the real enemy"
there can be more than 1 bad thing, t's not like a kids show with 1 big bad

senorfartcushion4d ago

This is very much a “dummy who volunteers themselves to the middle” comment.

The real enemy is a common phrase, people use it all the time.

Calm down.

jambola4d ago

i'm very calm
you seem very upset however

Notellin4d ago

You don't seem calm at all. Don't take this so seriously, you seem desperate responding to others defending your opinion that lacks any value or critical thought.

jambola4d ago

stop projecting
i'm not desperately dong anything, i'm tapping at keys on my keyboard bud

PapaBop4d ago

It's not like kids show with one bad guy? I present to you.. Bobby Kotick

ABizzel14d ago (Edited 4d ago )

DEI was never the problem and it was an ignorant take to begin with.

DEI is why games like Kena Bridge of Spirits, South of Midnight, and Ghost of Tsushima exist.

DEI is why we have a huge resurgence in Japanese, Chineses, and Korean developers producing games like Stellar Blade, Black Myth, and why Nintendo & Sony exist.

DEI is why more and more games have HUGE accessibility options with both Sony and MS fully behind this.

DEI was never a bad thing, the entire purpose of DEI is representation of all people, genders, disabilities, etc…

The problem was people used DEI as a default derogatory term to describe what they believed was forced representation, which allowed colorist, racist, sexist, misogynist, homophobic, and xenophobic fools to run away with the negative DEI narrative.

jambola3d ago

you don't get to decide other people's motivations
sorry to break it to you

ABizzel12d ago (Edited 2d ago )

To each their own, however, nothing you said invalidates why some people take offense to DEI incorrectly.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 2d ago
Sciurus_vulgaris6d ago

Executives seem to often have an obsession with perpetual revenue growth. There is always a finite amount of consumers for a product regardless of growth. Additionally, over investment is another serious issue in gaming.

Killer2020UK4d ago

The fact that they also rarely have any real expertise in game development compounds things. They'll look at what's been successful elsewhere, lack the knowledge to properly understand why they have been successful and then force a team to 'reproduce' their badly interpreted idea of that success.

We see it so often with sequels to games that were successful too. The team are left well alone, they have a break through hit and all of sudden the money men descend on the IP and completely railroad the dev team's ideas. Usually winds up being 'make the same game but MORE'

LoveSpuds4d ago

This is true throughout all of the corporate and public sector organisations to be honest. CEO's generally move amongst the corporate world without any need to have experience of a particular industry, they simply need to rely on their senior leadership credentials. A CEO of a retail giant will just as easily transition to a CEO role in the energy sector for example.

Not defending CEOs here to be clear, I think it's a huge part of the reason the western world is so fucked up. CEOs don't need to care about the sector they work in, in fact it's better if they don't care if they want to screw everyone to make profits.

GhostScholar4d ago

Companies don’t hire executives to break even. If the goal is breaking even then why start the company in the first place.

Soy4d ago

That's understood; it's getting record profits and expecting to always beat those record profits, and seeing anything less as a total failure. Then they lay people off and raise prices to reach those record profit levels again, just to sate shareholders. It's setting expectations way too high just to spike share prices, then inevitably falling short. It's feeling entitled to being more successful than everyone else. It's the CEOs doing all this to boost their own bonuses.

ABizzel14d ago

Growth benefits the company’s profits and therefore the company’s stock if publicly traded, which pleases the shareholders making them more and more rich, which is why Growth is always at the forefront of the vast majority of any publicly traded company.

More growth = More Money and the people at the top want all the money they can get. I can’t really blame them anyone would love to see their profits go from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, to multi-millions it’s almost like a gambling addiction.

But it also goes to show someone how morals can go out the window for a lot of these people, and how amazing some CEOs are when they catch this early and provide a balance solution that takes complete care of their employees across the board while keeping the business sustainable IE: Insomniac Games ALWAYS on the best places to work list. The rest of the industry could learn.

jambola6d ago

honestly, the "real" enemy of gaming, is ourselves
if nobody bought horse armor, shitty dlc would have died almost overnight
if we stood firm and nobody bought games from companies that were bad with layoffs, it would be solved
we're the idiots supporting awful business practices, we are the ones enouraging it

TiredGamer5d ago

I think the reality that we don't want to convince ourselves of is that without the rise of "horse armor" and DLC, game budgets would have essentially stagnated (smaller teams/smaller games), or game prices would have risen much more dramatically than they have. There was an incessant drive for bigger worlds, infinite detail, and hundreds of hours of "gameplay" over the last two decades, that while perhaps a natural evolution of things, needed a suitable funding stream to accomplish.

HyperMoused4d ago

What...CEOs make tens of millions and that doesnt include SLT etc etc...we now have multiple editions of games, in game currency, MT's, battle passes.....and what do we get..worse game than what was coming out 20 years ago....dont drink the cool aid, its this nickel and dime crap that is absolutely leading us to gaming destruction.

senorfartcushion4d ago

This is the worst possible answer to this conundrum. Blaming the masses is blaming the only people who are constantly “told” to buy.

Consumers are the only ones not to blame here. People make their own choices all the time. Disney movies are bombing and DEInis being blamed. Has that been enough to put Disney out of business? No and it never will.

Christopher4d ago

Disagree. Businesses are able to do what they do because people are bad consumers and don't think critically about purchases. Disney got away with doing shit stuff for years and it's just the last year where people got tired of it. It's not like it didn't work for 5 years or so for Disney to do the things they've done. They'll just move onto another way to get people to see movies and it will be just as bad but more profitable until people wake up and realize it.

TiredGamer4d ago

Consumerism drives business behavior. It's not so much "blaming" as it is observing behavior. The point I'm making is that the direction that games have gone are driven by the spending. Consumers are spending on DLC and they are driving the expectation of more glitz and padded out (lengthier) games. If they continue to pay, they will continue to drive that direction until a threshold is reached that forces a change in behavior.

senorfartcushion4d ago

Corporate advertising is the most powerful force on the planet.

This is N4G for god sake, every day there are arguments between people who are Team Xbox and Team PlayStation because they’ve been convinced that having an identity built on paying money to Sony and Microsoft matters more than having one as individual gamers who can play whatever they want.

And THEN we get to the corporate advertising part: to play whatever you want is to sink MORE into the advertising pits, making it so that you can more than one specific product.

jambola4d ago

ah you're right
they were told to buy it, it's clearly impossible to avoid that
if enough people stopped supporting, it would stop
disney not stopping would only be because enough people didn't stop

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4d ago
victorMaje4d ago

Agreed. I’ve been saying for years, announce you won’t be buying the upcoming game because of the practices of the previous game, then you only have to stick to your guns once, see how quickly things change for the better.

We have to unite in what we shouldn’t purchase.

jambola4d ago

just imagine a world, fifa came out worse, nobody buys the next one until they see proof it's better and stick to it
or games being forced online for single player and nobody buys it
things would change so fast

HyperMoused4d ago

Just like scooby doo, you have shown us the real monsters are us

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 4d ago
Inverno5d ago

Greed and greedy people have and always will be the main issue for everything wrong in the world. Everything is a product to be exploited for monetary gain. Even when there are things that could help progress us along for the sake of making our lives easier that thing must be exploited for monetary gains. Anything that tells you otherwise is propaganda to make you complicit.

coolfool5d ago

I've never thought "DEI" (although the way most people use it doesn't match it's real definition) is the problem with games. Good games have continued to be good when they have a diverse cast, and likewise, bad games have continued to be bad. There isn't a credible example I've seen where a diverse cast has been the direct cause of a game being bad.

Show all comments (51)
80°

Silly Polly Beast: A Silent Girl's Fight for Freedom • VGMM

Play as Polly, a silent girl on the run from her dark past in this neon-soaked psychological horror shooter.

Read Full Story >>
videogamesmademe.com
Create Report !X

Add Report

Reports

+ Updates (1)- Updates (1)

Updates

Changed from Pending to Approved
Community6d ago