Game Developers Unionize? 173
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?? (Score:2, Funny)
Actually (Score:2, Insightful)
As an artist in the industry, this is both scary and sad.
Re:Actually (Score:2)
I can picture the software director waste time trying to explain 1st Down, and why this is different with Cricket. Come to think of it, I don't think ANY country in the world really plays American football.
I guess EA will just have to reuse last year's engine and just update the roster with their NFL player ownership. Oh wait don't they do that every year.
Re:Actually (Score:2)
It would be quite easy. They could study manuals, videotapes, and even consult with John Madden. Just because they do not do it does not mean they cannot make a game of it. If this were true, Nintendo would have never built their huge company starting with a game about an Italian plumber jumping over burning barrels. Or Atari: "How do you expect us to make an Asteroids game? I've never e
Re:Actually (Score:4, Informative)
Re:Actually (Score:2)
Why couldn't they? Or would you suggest also that American programmers are incapable of developing a cricket or rugby game if they've never played it before?
Get rid of Lucasarts. Now! (Score:2)
I think we should get rid of all of the Lucasarts staff. They are so badly unqualified to design "Star Wars" games. There is not a single programmer among them who has actually piloted an X-Wing, or seen a Gungan in the flesh. Grossly unqualified, all of them.
Put em out on the streets. Let them go to the soup kitchen along with the Zelda designer
Outsourcing. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Outsourcing. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Outsourcing. (Score:3, Interesting)
You are right. (Score:2)
Re:Outsourcing. (Score:4, Interesting)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
The future (Score:3, Funny)
Actually (Score:5, Funny)
A couple cons (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A couple cons (Score:2, Insightful)
Err -- as opposed to the veritable explosion of low-budget, independent gaming that we see today?
Re:A couple cons (Score:3, Insightful)
Sound logic...
Re:A couple cons (Score:2)
Re:A couple cons (Score:2)
The reaso
Good idea (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Good idea (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Good idea (Score:2)
Seems like a fine balance is very hard to find.
Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Yet, they lose political rights. (Score:2)
Unless the state is "right to work" (which protects workers' rights regardless of whether they join political organizations), such a store is a lost cause. To keep it open, Wal-Mart would have to force the workers into the union whether it was in their interest or not. If I ran that company, I would not be proud to have such a store in the chain. Do you what states these stores were in?
"Thanks to bad labor law, the union vote at th
About time (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:About time (Score:2)
Not only that, but outsourcing in this particular field isn't all that practical. If it were, why wouldn't EA just do that instead of over-demanding from their employees?
There's value in having an employee in the building. There's value in natively speaking the same language. There's value in not having a 12 hour time difference. There's value in having y
Wrong solution. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
It's not an easy thing, as a relatively unknown quantity, to get financial support to run your own game studio and produce a quality game. If you can do it, likely you'll be beholden to a game publisher, and the deadlines and restrictions they're going to impose put you back in a boat pr
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:3, Insightful)
If you haven't already saved enough money to feed your family while you endure the hardships of startup, or don't have some property with a lot of equity that you can mortgage, it's YOUR moral failing.
Oh, don't forget that something like 9 of 10 businesses fail within 5 years, but I guess that's due to moral failing, especially if through their previous moral fail
You know what's scary? (Score:2)
Wage slave is an oxymoron (Score:2)
"Wage slave" is an oxymoron. There is no slavery in freely trading, including the free trade of work for compensation equal to the value of the work.
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:2)
You are thinking in terms of capital, which obviously makes it sound expensive. You have to realize that this figure is how much you'd need to hire all the people who'll write your game, lease office space, purchase computers and video equipment, hire lawyers to write the EULA, and furnish a pretty CEO office.
The picture changes dramatically if all you are trying to do is write the game. You already have the computer; you already have the pro
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:2)
Well, let's see how much a married couple with a kid really needs. I'll assume you are living in a cheap area, where you have your own house. You'd need about $2000/year for food (all meals made at home, no eating out), $1000 for the property taxes on the house (which you should own by now; we're not talking about a kid fresh out of college), $1000 on the electric bill (with heating), $600 for water and garbage. You should be able t
Apples and Oranges (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
No Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
So move! There are many nice places to live outside of Silicon Valley. If you are self-employed, you don't have to worry about having no jobs in the area, so pretty much any place is game.
> A game as put out by a solo effort
I said nothing about the game being developed just by one person. You can easily apply the same financial arguments to thirty people; programmers, artists, whatever, and have them collaborate over th
Re:No Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Re:No Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
Now this really is apples and oranges. I consider most games made today bad enough to not buy them. I was making an assumption that you can make a good game (which is a different criteria from "a game with great graphics"). If you start a company and make a bad game, then you'll fail. Bad games don't do much good for big companies either. It's just a fact of life.
> I thingk I'm being generous with the odds of having a good game.
Making a
Castle Of The Wind rocks! (Score:2)
> points system, is inferior to Castle Of the Winds,
Oh yes, I love that game!
It does, however, make a point about developer-made graphics. While I personally didn't care, there is little excuse these days for 16-color pictures that look like a ten year old child drew them (like the dreaded "gelatin blob"
I would l
Re:Apples and Oranges (Score:2)
This is what the industry really needs; it needs something between the 30 person/2 year development
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:2)
That is the problem: overhigh wages. (Score:3, Insightful)
That is a big part of the problem. The wage should be for the real value of the work. Not for some arbitrary amount that someone has defined as a "living wage" which has nothing to do with the value of the work. If the unions want to keep the company in business, they would not encourage wasting money on paying "living wages" for those jobs that are worth less than the arbitrary value.
Besides, it is not generally true that "Unions are interested in k
Re:That is the problem: overhigh wages. (Score:2)
Re:That is the problem: overhigh wages. (Score:2)
It is stolen money for those who do not want these services, or especially those who do not want the factory closings and layoffs that forced unionization encourages. Also, you are forgetting that much of this stolen money is spent on political candidates and causes that go against the interest of the workers.
"Is it fair for them to gain extra wages and benifits with out being in the Union."
"Fair" is a subjective conc
Re:That is the problem: overhigh wages. (Score:2)
It is stolen money for those who do not want these services
If they dont want the services they can find a job somewhere else. The Union and the Employer are in Contract. If they do want the job then they need to pay for the services of Union.
Why force anyone at all into an organization that has nothing to do with your ability to do the job or not? It makes just as much sense to force workers to join the Southern Baptist Church or the ACLU.
The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU doesn't bargain for you
Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
That's fine. Why not let them work there and they can work out their benefits on their own? Without the union? I think it is silly to mandate union "benefits" to non-union members anyway.
"The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU doesn't bargain for you wage, benefits, work hours."
If you do not like the organization and what it does, it is exactly the same thing: forcing someone to join something that has nothing to do with actual job qualif
Re:Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
That's fine. Why not let them work there and they can work out their benefits on their own? Without the union? I think it is silly to mandate union "benefits" to non-union members anyway.
They are in contract with the employer. Why would the Union let people work in positions under its contract without being paid for its services (or having them be apart of the Union).
It has nothing to do with the job, but there are a lot of things you deal with that have nothing to do with the qualifications of the
Re:Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
Why should the union let them? Because there are people who want to work at those positions. It seems like a bad contract if it prevents qualified workers from working jobs.
"If the union didn't provide large amounts of money to political causes would unions be ok? "
They'd be a lot better. My biggest peeve is the ones th
Re:Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
It seems like a bad contract if it prevents qualified workers from working jobs.
If the Union did let them it would destory the value/power of the Union. States that have laws preventing Unions from "forcing" people into Unions have really Weak Unions and hence no benefits from Unions. Also, I will remind you that Unions dont force people to join. People always have the choice to not work the position. You dont have to have a job.
It is a vaild suggestion to prevent Unions from giving to politcal causes
Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
"States that have laws preventing Unions from "forcing" people into Unions
Re:Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
The Union only has power with its Positions. If they let people take those positions then they would have no more power over bargaining for those positions.
Take for example Beer.
I am Qualified to buy Beer. The brewery would like me to have beer(They like selling beer). The bar has a contract with the brewery and have so many beers. If the Bar decided to give me the choice to pay for the beer then it would have no money, becuase no one will pay for something they can get for free. The brewery and Myself
Re:Let the workers decide. (Score:2)
Just like the secretary is not forced to have sex with the boss.
follow up (Score:2)
I should mention that I don't consider such organizations to be legitimate if people are forced to join them. Let them play by the same rules as the ACLU, NRA, Sierra Club....and those Southern Baptists.
Unlike closed-shop unions, these organizations are forced to be accountable to their members. If they are not, the members leave. The union gets members and money even if half the people don't like the union and w
Re:follow up (Score:2)
Re:follow up (Score:2)
Because you refuse to join and give money to a political organization that has nothing to do with whether or not you can do your job? That makes as much sense as firing the secretary who won't sleep with her boss.
No, you do not have a choice. "Join this club or you are fired" is coercion, not choice.
Using your logic, we should make the United States an officially Christian nation. Don't like it? Go to Mexico. It's free choice, right?
Re:follow up (Score:2)
keep thinking of these too late. The difference is that I think worker rights are something to defend. There's not much worker rights involved in a situation of "join this non-job-related club or we will fire you". Why not let each worker decide?
The only good thing with the situation is that unions have managed to win the hearts of only 8% of the workers in the U.S. It is no surprise, with such "join or we will get you fired" bullying tactics. Perhaps if the u
Re:follow up (Score:2)
Re:Wrong solution. (Score:2)
> without pay and can you find a large group of
> people willing to do same thing.
You are talking about Open Source software, right? After all, nobody would ever want to spend years developing something and not get paid for it... Surely, this OSS thing doesn't really exist, does it?
How about a game PLAYERS union? (Score:5, Funny)
I say we all go on strike until these demands are met. Gamers of the world, UNITE!
Re:How about a game PLAYERS union? (Score:2)
Stigma attached to the word "Union" (Score:2)
Re:Stigma attached to the word "Union" (Score:2)
You mean the ones from 100 or so years ago that were not above actually murdering people for the "crime" of crossing picket lines in order to work for a living?
Earning the stigma. (Score:2)
It is the unions that assault, harass, and insult those who dare to work at the jobs the union members quit and gave away (by going on strike) that also draw negative stereotypes.
Re:Earning the stigma. (Score:2)
Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2)
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.
I have a few friends who got together and made a few high quality short films. They've occasionally had to pay a good chunk of money for a key position here and there, but generally, they've been able
Stay Away... (Score:4, Insightful)
Aren't we outsourcing enough jobs?
Great Idea. (Score:2)
Re:Stay Away... (Score:2)
Aren't we outsourcing enough jobs?
They're already outsourcing software jobs.
Besides, I haven't seen any convincing evidence of a causal relationship between unions and outsourcing. If you have some, I'd certainly be interested in reading it.
Re:Stay Away... (Score:2)
Consider car companies tending to close union plants, and tending to open new plants or move operations to countries or states where workers are not forced to join unions.
Jumping the Gun (Score:2, Interesting)
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 t
Mixed feelings (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
You missed this (Score:2)
Northwest Airline baggage handlers intentionally smashing fragile packages against the walls and floors as a part of a "game". This one was in the news.
School bus driver caught abusing handicappped children on the bus. Was fired. Un
Re:You missed this (Score:2)
Re:You missed this (Score:2)
Re:You missed this (Score:2)
Not every Union is bad. The problem is that it's the bad unions (who are probably the majority) who tend to attract the press. I've noticed time and time again that the quality of the outputs from a Trade Union are directly linked the quality of the candidates chosen to act as officers. Unions with a lot of full-time officers are alm
Re:You missed this (Score:2)
Well, you answered that membership IS voluntary, which makes the union a fine and legitimate organization "in my book"!
"Advancing a political cause, supporting a candidate or campaigning for any issues beyond what has an immediate impact on the working environment should be completely taboo"
I have no problem with this if the members want it: provided that membership is (as it is in this example) voluntary.
LOL OMG (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:LOL OMG (Score:2)
Should be interesting... (Score:2)
I don't know about Quebec (Score:2)
Re:I don't know about Quebec (Score:3, Informative)
However, in Québec, it's much easier to implement an union than elsewhere in North-America (that's because we're mostly french, and have been thoroughly screwed in the past by english companies so we eventually started to elect governments that would listen to the people rather than rich fuckers).
Re:I don't know about Quebec (Score:2)
That does not sound very progressive: being forced to join political organizations that have nothing to do with whether or not you can do the job. Anyway, much of the United States is "right to work" where you can work without joining. I do not know about Mexico and Central America (for the rest of North America).
Re:I don't know about Quebec (Score:2)
Companies have no problem about uniting their capital in order to squish the workers, so it's only fair that the workers be able to do the same.
It is extremely regressive (Score:2)
You are forgetting that it overrides the workers own desires and needs....and often runs against them. It is progressive in the way that fascism is progressive: not at all.
"so it's only fair that the workers be able to do the same.
Yet, if workers are being forced to do it, it is not something they are choosing to do. You are squishing between 30% and 50% of the workers along the way (those who do not like the unio
Re:It is extremely regressive (Score:2)
Never mind. When you'll grow up, you'll understand.
Re:It is extremely regressive (Score:2)
Nah. I was too smart to grow into Ayn Rand in the first place, so I never grew out of her. I've been known to thump her and the Randists many a time, as well. Besides, it is not just the Randroids who know that Marxism has nothing to do with real economics or the way the world works. You might try the 93% of us smart enough to see past both Marx and Rand. This includes myths of "capitol" and "squishing workers"
Re:It is extremely regressive (Score:2, Funny)
Ending Exempt status. (Score:2)
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 (Score:2)
The real solution is for game developers to not put up with this any more.
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:2)
Provided that the union membership is entirely voluntary, what is wrong with this? It would seem to be part of the free market, not the antithesis. It is only when workers are forced to pay for this that the free market goes away. Sadly, this applies to the AFL-CIO, which does weild huge $$$ with Congress. Most of its members did not even choose to join it (they are forced). Ho
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:3)
I've got news for you. Most larger companies either have their own lobbying group or band together to have enough clout to afford one. That, and less legal things, is their way to influence congressmen, governors, etc in order to get laws that are beneficial to the company.
Please tell me that you didn't think the legislators made those laws because they were bored.
It's about bloody well
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:2)
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:2)
What about when both turn on the employees? Forced unionization (closed shop) abuses the employees (very roughly half) who are in the union but don't like what it is doing and are not represented by it. So now you have the unions beating up on employees too. Sometimes, the union literally beats up on workers (as in those who dare to cros
Re:Terrible Idea (Score:2)
How would you propose they do that, if not through a union? The company doesn't care if one worker says he won't work for more than 45 hours a week, he can be replaced easily enough. If EVERY programmer walks out the front door to demand better hours, then things will get done. The only way to accomplish such a feat is to have a union of workers who agree to work together. Not every union has to send money to lobby groups, it can ju
They don't have a union to thank (Score:2)
They have themselves to thank, for their own hard work, not the dwindling unions that control 10% of the workforce.
To hell with that (Score:2)
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 s
Re:This can't work (Score:2)
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 th