Game Developers Unionize?

Gamasutra.com has a look at the reasons, both pro and con, for unionization of the folks behind the entertainment software industry. From the article: "Many industry observers see close parallels between the gripes of today's game developers and those of workers in the movie industry in the 1930s and '40s, particularly in the animation segment. The difference is that Hollywood unionized, and the game industry is still only talking about it."

Unionize... benefits??

The sound of Electronic Arts fat-cats screaming "NOOOOOOOOOO!" echoes through the night...

Re:Actually

actually, nintendo started out making playing cards.

Outsourcing.

The difference is outsourcing. The game industry can pretty much outsource everyone. Hollywood can't: if they outsourced everything, it would become Bollywood, and there is already a Bollywood.

Re:Outsourcing.

You do realize, that "The Grudge" aka Ju-On was orginally Japanese to begin with, the director was the same director of the orginal as well alot of cast members from the Japanese movie where in the american version. Just thought I would throw that little bit of food for thought at ya. I applaud Sam Raimi for his choice to keep the story in Japan.

Re:Outsourcing.

They certainly can! I mean, games are a prime example of the type of stuff that can be outsourced to a group of generic coders, as opposed to developed by a hand picked team of people with specific skills in specific areas. Games, by and large:

• Are written in collaborative languages like COBOL, C#, and Java
• Require little or optimization
• Require no imagination or development of new ideas. Games are usually simple black boxes, easily spec'd, with no unusual programming techniques required
• Require no specialized art beyond simple UI icons and existing corporate logos
• Whoever heard of a game with audio? Only programmers need to be involved in the development of new games
• Require similar skillsets amongst all developers. A programmer working on one aspect of a game's design is almost certainly suited to developing every other part. So different programmers can be swapped in and out of development as needed, and to increase development speed, all you have to do is throw in more programmers

I've used a wide variety of games in my time. Most, of course, were bespoke, developed for specific giant corporations, to manage their payrolls for example, or online ordering systems. Just because greedy people like John Carmack have made their millions through automated bank statement printers (thanks Carmack's "Quake 3 Arena" for our outrageous banking fees!) and supermarket inventory control systems, doesn't mean we need people like them developing the next generation

So don't tell me that you can't out-source games development! It's just a matter of firing everyone and sending the specs of any new games you need developed to an outside agency.

(Yes, it's sarcasm)

(Yes, I'm aware there's probably a lot of talented people all over the world. But that's not what outsourcing is. Outsourcing is about making use of shared pools of programmers operating according to specs that have travelled half way around the world, who can program more cheaply than the people they're replacing. If a job requires talent, that's not possible. You can, obviously, open an EA office in India and headhunt the best hardware hackers, artists, etc, but that's not exactly something you can do overnight.)

The future

I wonder if video game developers will be infiltrated by communist sympathizers. Maybe we will see a new publisher open up that denounces the bourgeois trappings of saving "princesses" that represent oppression of the proletariat. The People's Games will feature themes of hard work and equality, while still somehow making the members of the Party (the developers) more equal than the game players themselves. Anyone pointing out that the act of selling the games is counter to the Party's teachings will be sent to the gulag for reeducation.

Actually

Actually, I think the end result will be new developments in RPG-style fantasy games. You will go into a dungeon and find Teamsters-member goblins lounging against the walls, refusing to lift a finger to fight you. Entire levels of games will be replaced with big red "UNFAIR! ON STRIKE" messages blocking entry. Fighting the boss of a level will become even more fun: no more swords and shark guns. Now, you will fight the boss through mass demonstration and labor action.

A couple cons

Don't want to totally diss this idea, but I wanted to point out a couple of problems I see with it: Unions have the potential to stifle creativity. If union rules require that everything gets made with union workers, suddenly it becomes a lot harder for low-budget, independent studios to operate. There's also the fact that unions tend to enforce seniority a little too much. I realize it might seem silly to talk about at a time when people are quitting before they get old enough to be fired for being paid too much, but if that were to change, you suddenly have the issue of age being weighted over merit in company hierarchies.

Good idea

It would probably be a good idea but this seems a pervasive element to modern America's future. The pressure is on to cut custs as it's a quick-n-dirty way to boost profits so looks good on portfolios for investors.

But the backlash is that although outsourcing can stem rising wage costs, you need to keep that group in jobs to buy the shit your company churns out. As a whole, the greed is simply going to voerpower the likes of EA, etc., .

Now, I'm not even in America so my knowledge of US workers is based solely on Slashdot and The Onion, but even I can see that perhaps nationally agreed minimum contracts negotitated by unions for various professions like games programmers, etc., would help.

They can outsource some of the people some of the time, but they can't outsource *all* the people *all* the time. WOuld they simply be prepared to shut up shop and move base to Mumbai? I don't think the corporate big wigs would appreciate that one bit.

Re:Yet, they lose political rights.

The other side of the coin is: if you're an employer, and you don't like unions, don't give your employees any reason to join one.

BTW, the laziness you cite is common throughout the industry, it's just anti-union kooks notice it more with unionized companies. One of the most absurdly anti-union companies in the US at the moment is Wal*Mart.

Tell us what you think about the average Wal*Mart employee's attitude to work.

Re:Good idea

Now, I'm not even in America so my knowledge of US workers is based solely on Slashdot and The Onion, but even I can see that perhaps nationally agreed minimum contracts negotitated by unions for various professions like games programmers, etc., would help.
The problem is unions, like almost any other body, looks after itself first. Extra clauses get included in the contract negotiations, things like:
* Artificial Requirements - a union programmer must have a degree from a 4 year university with a 2 year apprenticeship, to limit the available workforce to artificially increase wages.
* Artificial job titles - Only a person with 15 years of experience can be a senior programmer, to keep older union guys employed
* Artificial Work Requirements - Any released product (no matter if it is an expansion pack, port, or an entirely new game) must have at least - 1 Sr. Level editor, 1 Sr. Artist, 1 Artist, 1 Sr. Game Designers, 1 Sr. Engine Developer, 2 Sr. Programmers, etc. to ensure continued employment of the union workers.
Unions work to the benifit of their members, sometimes at the expense of the industry itself.

About time

People have come to this comclusion many times before, it's time somebody actually starts acting.

Don't fear outsourcing. Saying "we can't demand better work conditions because they'd outsource us" makes you a slave at the mercy of your master. Fact is that your work conditions are so bad they almost violate international right, if you believe you'll lose your job if you try to improve them you'll work at those inhuman conditions until you die or get outsourced anyway. The whole fear thing is exploited by companies which is a reason I demand anyone who wants to abolish job security is considered a public enemy. Job security is the only thing stopping corporations from blackmailing their employees into working inhuman hours in order to keep their jobs (or even falsify timesheets!). Unions provide job security since they counteract the idea that you can replace anyone demanding humane treatment with a new drone that won't complain for a few years.

As long as someone is willing to do the job there will be work. Even if all dev houses outsource to India or Russia you'll see new devs using local devs pop up. Since the big studios would no longer be siphoning up the best workers and the smaller companies will more likely attemp to fight with innovative ideas and fresh games instead of trying to make graphics that can compete with some 200MUSD game we might even see the rebirth of the industry. But seriously, it won't come that far.

Unions go against job security

"Unions provide job security since they counteract the..."

In real practice, however, unions reduce job security. When the company has to pay everyone more, they have to get rid of workers to make up for it (the money has to come from somewhere), and the company's workforce undergoes reduction.

A good example of this is the famous Teamster's strike at UPS just a few years ago. The Teamsters won their wage demands, and the size of the UPS workforce was reduced in order to pay it.

Wrong solution.

Unions are formed to bludgeon your employer into doing business the way you want him to do business. It is incomprehensible to me why people consider this a good thing. If you don't like how your company is treating you, leave and form your own. Talk to your coworkers and you'll find that if your employer is so evil they will love the idea. So get together and write a game. You all already know how to do it; it's the same thing you are doing now! Except that instead of paying slavedriver managers and the CEO, you get to keep all that money for yourselves. And nobody will be forcing you to work 200 hours a week either.

Apples and Oranges

With all due respect, you're talking about the shift to create a one-person indy computer game, which is a world of difference from what is produced by a full game dev team making a console game (which is more the kind of thing the article is talking about, and the kind of workers it muses about unionizing.)

The start of the discussion you proposed was about talking to your fellow game dev team and convincing them to jump ship to do it independently. That's not really what you're crunching the financials of.

Putting aside that, if you're in that industry, you almost certainly don't live in a low cost area, despite there being a couple exceptions to that rule...

A game as put out by a solo effort isn't really the same kind of thing that is put out by a team of mixed team of thirty or so game designers, creative designers, programmers, and so on. Telling someone they should give up the latter in favor of the former is like telling a guy who isn't happy working as an architect building houses that he should give it up and build doghouses in his backyard. It's just a totally different scale.

The one-man effort also requires that one person be able to wear ALL hats in the game development process. They need to be able to dream up a great idea for the game. They need to be able to do all involved artwork. They need to be able to do all of the programming. If they're not great at all of these things and more, they're probably not going to put out something people will want to play. They're definitely not going to be able to put out a console game that will get past Sony/Nintendo/Microsoft's approval process.

A game of this scope isn't made in a year and it's not made by one person. It generally requires an investment of piles of money and years of time before ANY profit is seen. These things aren't practical to do without financial backing.

I don't deny one person can go off and make a game and possibly make it good, but it's not the same kind of product as a professional console game is these days. That's not to say that it couldn't possibly be more fun or draw more players, but it's not the same kind of product. It's just not. There is always going to be the demand for the polish and depth of the professional version despite some indy game successes, and while that's true, there are going to be people doing it for a living.

How about a game PLAYERS union?

I propose we form a union for gamers. Here are our demands:

1. A standard 8 hour gaming day
2. 15 minute breaks every three hours for Red Bull and Doritos.
3. Workman's comp for carpal tunnel syndrome
4. Dental plan.

I say we all go on strike until these demands are met. Gamers of the world, UNITE!

Stigma attached to the word "Union"

Personally I think it is a good idea, but so many just hear the word union and think of long running unions that do more bad than good. What will be going on here (hopefully) is a completely new union run by people who actually want to make the work conditions better for the employee, much like the orignal trade unions before they become bloated fatcats themselves. People shouldnt be too quick to make the UNION=BAD association.

Why?

I'm a huge fan of unionizing in many areas but this doesn't seem like one of them.

The young artists releasing their first game from their basement and moving on to become their own boss seems much more plausible.

Trying to start a game company becomes much more difficult when you have to hire unionized labour instead of going directly online and searching for people with common interest.

Once you get artists moving from title to title non-stop with no care about the product yea you'll need unions and publishers but I'd rather not see the "industry" go that direction.

Stay Away...

Sure, lets have the unions do for software industry what they did for the American auto, steel, & textile industries.

Aren't we outsourcing enough jobs?

Jumping the Gun

Unionizing might be jumping the gun. The video game industry is very young. It'll be better for management to be a little wiser than to have employees unionize. Bad working conditions and un-wise managment are the result of a industry that hasn't grown up yet and is expected to make titles that cost 25 million.

The level of graphical detail that is expected out of development studios has progressed far faster than the video game industry has matured. We can partially thank ATI and nVidia's competition for that (releasing significantly more advanced cards less than a year apart). All it takes is one studio to spend 10mil on a project and now that's what is expected out of everyone else. Yeah, people say graphics isn't everything but if your game doesn't look as good as the best, you've just lost sales.

It was said at GDC that the industry really needs to learn from other industries when it comes to management. This is a really good idea. Although all this talk about working conditions and unionizing is good and healthy, I don't think unionizing is going to happen any time soon. And if that does happen, labor costs for games will go up. Period. With all this talk about the increased cost for next-generation games, just think about who that is scaring.

Quite honestly, I think the managers will do a better job. Making video games is never going to be a comfortable job even if they do unionize. Better planning and organized production will go a long way in a large scale project, and a union won't help there.

Mixed feelings

I've spent a significant part of my career working in HR Policy, albeit outside the IT sector and in the UK. This has given me a lot of exposure to Trade Unions, from the "management" side. I must say I've got very mixed feelings about them.

There are undoubtedly some positives. Unions can be pretty tenacious in defending individuals who have been genuinely wronged by their employer or their immediate manager. In cases of disputes between individual employees (eg. grievance proceedings), the Union can provide a decent independent arbiter. Where Unions have good relationships with management, they can genuinely help improve an organisations effectiveness, by identifying and helping to resolve issues that are having a significant negative impact on morale.

However, these are matched by, and perhaps even outweighed by, a significant number of negatives. The biggest problem is that a lot of Unions tend to get hijacked very quickly by radical left-wingers of often uncertain sanity, whose goal often seems to be nothing more than to ruin generally benevolent employers. There are some Unions which understand the give and take of negotiations with management and there are others which see strike action as the first and only resort whenever management try to stake out some principles of their own. When this happens, it's not just management who lose out. Employees often suffer the most serious privitations. Business partners of the employer are also affected, as are their employees. Customers likewise suffer and if the employer is providing an essential service, the consequences can be very serious indeed. We've seen where this leads fairly recently in the UK, when the Fire Brigade union walked out on Strike. The general public support for the employees evaporated overnight once the strike started and the employees ended up significantly worse off then they would have been with sane representatives, who were more interested in employee wellbeing than advancing a political agenda.

Unions can also highly divisive and discriminatory among the workforce. Fortunately, the worst excesses of the Unions in this area were curbed during the 80s, so the situation is a lot better than it once was, but the most insular unions can really make life hell for their non-union co-workers.

Finally, there is the risk of out-sourcing. This isn't necessarily an inevitable consequence of Unionisation. However, it IS an inevitable consequence of combatative, militant, confrontational Unionisation in fields like IT. Most employers are actually more reasonable that slashdot readers are generally willing to give them credit for. I've only ever met one or two employers (out of dozens), who were not willing to entertain talks with Trade Union representatives and make reasonable adjustments to working practices where a business case could be demonstrated. However, if the Union plays it wrong and takes an overly aggressive line, Management are likely to panic and reach for the big Outsourcing Stick.

In short, Unionisation isn't necessarily the wrong decision here, but games developers need to be damned careful over who they let run their union if they decide to go for it.

LOL OMG

I'm laughing my ass off at all the posters who claim Unionization would destroy the creative industries.

There are few industries as unionized as the Motion Picture Business. Yet, it seems to be responsive to market demands and changing technology, profitable, and a world leader in its field. And it remains headquartered in California.

Any by Unionized, I mean UNIONIZED. Pick any major Hollywood release at random. I would wager that:

- The writer is a union member (Writers Guild of America).

- The director is a union worker (Director's Guild of America).

- The stars and most of the actors are union members (Screen Actors Guild).

- The cinematographer is a union member (American Society of Cinematographers).

- All the electricians, carpenters, truckers, and other construction and transportation personnel are unionized.

- Stunt personnel are unionized.

Are there non-union productions? Yes, sometimes. But the understanding in the industry is that the majority of work goes to union members. The major players all deal with the unions.

BTW, guess which country has the strongest Auto Worker union. Yeah, Japan. Perhaps American auto companies are less competitive for other reasons.

Should be interesting...

... given that Ubisoft is based in Québec, where labour laws are progressive enough to have allowed the unionization of several Wall-Marde stores...

Ending Exempt status.

With shrinking wages and long long hours isn't it time to start getting overtime? If you not a manager managing people your a worker. Has long as your bosses can work you like a dog for 60 hours weeks then they won't hire anyone else to take the load. The threat of Overtime for tech workers will help put more of your colleagues to work.

And yes this is a replay of one of my comment in another thread. I was in a tangent there, this is more relevant here.

Terrible Idea

All that will happen is we programmers will have yet another huge, unresponsive monolithic agency taking more money out of our paycheck. Unions are the antithesis of free markets, especially when they start doing things like using member money to influence Congress.

The real solution is for game developers to not put up with this any more.

To hell with that

I'm a game programmer, and I'll gladly fight against any unionization attempts. Unions are for alleviating sweatshop conditions, dangerous working environment, dishonest employee-employer relationships and the likes. Unions aren't for wage extortion.

Right now, a lot of people work crazy long hours in game development, true. But we also get paid several times over what people doing similar kinds of work outside of game development earn. There's no sweatshop atmosphere, and there's certainly no shortage of similar jobs outside the industry so it's not like any of us are locked in.

The net result of unionizing game development would be a mass exodus of jobs, higher costs making things impossible for small startup developers, more government interference in my daily work as we're expected to align with whatever hellhole PACs the union bosses decide to align with, and higher development costs making for pricier games. To hell with all that.

Entertainment unions...

It may sound ridiculous for those in entertainment to form unions-- actors, writers, directors and animators should be happy just to be working, right? Unfortunately many artists are more than happy to sign on the dotted line to get some exposure and a quick check, without realizing how much value (present and future) they're signing away.

One only has to look at the music industry (in which the acts aren't unionized) to see how badly artists can be screwed. SAG, WGA and the Director's guild do more than guarantee a minimum paycheck-- they ensure that rights are protected and residuals are paid. Without unions, a studio could (and would, and have in the past) steal a script or idea and put an in-house writer's name on it, for example, or re-run an actor's appearance in a show or on a commercial for years without paying them a dime. And then there are the technicians who often work 60-80 hours a week to meet tight production demands... And their unions make sure they're justly paid for their overtime.

Of course, no one NEEDS entertainment (not like society needs plumbers and steel workers, at least) so I understand anyone who'd say "let 'em rot." But this is a multi-billion-dollar industry and you can bet the studio heads would do their best to screw every little guy they could to keep the money for themselves.

So, yes, the game industry should be unionized... Because it's another business where there's no shortage of young, naiive developers who would be more than happy to sell out their futures just to be involved-- without realizing how much value their hard work is actually worth.

Unions are a waste.

I pretty much came to realize that unions were a complete and total waste the day I saw, on strike, a gaggle of employees of Budget Rent-A-Car.

Budget. FUCKING. Rent-A-Car.

Or maybe it was the time I was working at a TV station and saw 4 union guys drilling *one* hole in the wall. And when the clock struck 4:30 pm, they left the drill, bit only *halfway* through the wall, stuck in the wall, took their ladder down, and quit for the day.

Yes, Hollywood unionized. And how much more time and money does it now take to get anything done in Hollywood? TONS. Unions fucked Hollywood. Unions fuck any and every industry they touch. Unions are detrimental to production.

You want to end up costing and taking longer to get games to market? Unionize the gaming industry. You want to end up paying $100 for a decent game? Unionize the gaming industry.

You wanna see people filing grievances because god forbid somebody wanted a coder to patch something, when that's a patcher's job! Unionize the gaming industry.

Budget. FUCKING. Rent-A-Car.

No sir, I don't like it

One of the best aspects of the computer field is how anarchic it is. You don't need a college degree, and you sure as hell don't have to put up with some Medieval Guild mentality just to get your foot in the door.

There's a theory which states that complex systems eventually end up working against the very purpose they were created to serve. I don't know if the big American unions have quite reached this point yet, but they sure don't have the teeth they once did.

The only memorable Union action I can recall in my lifetime, the only one with real teeth, was the UPS strike back in 97.

Look at the shitty deal teachers get in this country. The NEA and its state affiliates are a union that does more harm than good.

I support self-determination, though. What Wal-Mart does, closing down stores rather than let the workers vote on unionizing, is some bullshit. But on the flip side, why does the guy bagging my groceries at Safeway have to give a part of his paycheck to a union? Does he really get his money's worth out of that? To be fair I don't know, maybe he does.

Unionise?

Http://gamewatch.org/ - up by June Surely they'll have their arse sued off?

Increased "Labor Costs"

Levin cautions that unionization frequently means increased labor costs, which does no one any good.

Wait a minute! What he means when he says "increased labor costs" is that game developers will get paid more and/or work less hours. How exactly does that not do anyone any good? It sounds to me like it's good for you if you're the one on the receiving end and bad for you if you happen to be one of Levin's management clients.

Sure, one can argue that it might result in layoffs or outsourcing. But layoffs aren't bad for the people that remain if they have more pay for fewer hours. And even outsourcing is good if you happen to be a programmer in India. Hell, outsourcing would likely only be used for the low-risk, less creative grunt-work -- which means it's not that bad for you if you are highly skilled.

And anyway, the highly skilled ones are the ones that tend to burn out and leave the industry after a few years. Which is better? Having highly skilled people quit the industry in disgust, leaving shitty jobs with long hours and low pay for people who can't get a job in another industry -- or outsource the shitty jobs, layoff the people without talent and have better pay and shorter hours for the more talented ones, so that they stay in the industry? Sounds to me like the anti-union guy is arguing that unions will result in better games and better jobs for talented developers. Where do I sign up?

"So everyone needs to be aware that, with increased labor costs, which are inevitable when you have a union, there are going to be consequences."

Now this is a hoot. The anti-union lawyer is actually promising us that if we unionize, we'll get more money for less hours. The fact is that it isn't actually inevitable. Most workers want more respect and better conditions. That doesn't necessarily mean more pay, though we're free to push for that if we want. And long hours are not some well-thought-out plan for greater productivity. Long hours are a result of incompetent planning and scheduling - and result in less productivity in the long run. If game developers unionize and force management to learn how to manage competently, that would result in less labor costs in the long term, not to mention less risk and better games.

Re:Whatever happened to Independents?

Indepent games are alive and well. Just look at the IGF and you will see some of the most creative and original games to come out each year are independents. The only problem is no one, apparently (as you have anonymously shown) including those pining for indepents to return, will take notice of this.

Re:This can't work

Your missing the point, currently the Game Industry is not working and something needs to change. You can't have people work 80 hours a week for extend periods of time and expect them to produce a good product(time after time). It just wont work. One of the suggestions is to Unionize, with out Unionization what motivations does the Industry have to prevent this horrible situation. (clearly poor product hasn't prevented them in the past).

I Clearly dont see how people can be happy with the fact the games they played required people to destory there lifes. We are talking about GAMES here, they are not required for life. 50 Million dollars and destoring a few developers lives just to be able to waste 3 hours of your life in some virtual world. Think of the things you can do with 50 Million dollars. I bet that money could feed a lot of hungry people in Africa. You might say it is the developers fault for making games that cost 50 Million dollars. I dont blame them one bit, why?, becuase I dont think most of them want to be dealing with numbers so big. I think it is the Market that is pushing them into that.

Think about that next time you play a game or watch a movie.