More Videogames Developers Consider Unionization - Some Spurred By Changes to Remote Work Policies (aftermath.site) 64
Developers for several top videogames have joined unions under the Communication Workers of America — including Call of Duty, Fallout, Overwatch, Diablo and World of Warcraft. Last month workers on the online game Magic: The Gathering Arena team announced their own CWA union.
The gaming news site Aftermath shares some interesting details: Owner Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast could have voluntarily agreed to the union, but instead the issue is going to an official vote with the National Labor Relations Board in June... [O]ne Arena developer shared on Bluesky that one of the reasons they were inspired to organize was because Wizards changed its remote work policy, requiring them to move across the country or to a more expensive state to remain employed. (Changes to remote work have been one of the big drivers of unionization and union action among video game developers.) If the union is successful, the company wouldn't be able to unilaterally change working conditions like remote work; it would have to negotiate with the union over the decision. There's no guarantee unionized employees would get what they want, but they'd have more of a say, and the opportunity to directly influence their work situation, than they would without a union.
The gaming news site Aftermath shares some interesting details: Owner Hasbro and Wizards of the Coast could have voluntarily agreed to the union, but instead the issue is going to an official vote with the National Labor Relations Board in June... [O]ne Arena developer shared on Bluesky that one of the reasons they were inspired to organize was because Wizards changed its remote work policy, requiring them to move across the country or to a more expensive state to remain employed. (Changes to remote work have been one of the big drivers of unionization and union action among video game developers.) If the union is successful, the company wouldn't be able to unilaterally change working conditions like remote work; it would have to negotiate with the union over the decision. There's no guarantee unionized employees would get what they want, but they'd have more of a say, and the opportunity to directly influence their work situation, than they would without a union.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Penalties are light and unlikely enough in many jurisdictions for employers to consider it a cost of doing business though. See what Amazon's been doing in their warehouses in Quebec and BC for examples. Coincidentally, guess which Canadian provinces have the most videogame dev studios...
Re: (Score:2)
Amazon doesn't fire their employees and replace them. Amazon shuts down the entire FC and moves out of town.
Re: (Score:2)
They actually do both, they're known to use their Manna-clone system that orders warehouse workers around to "find problems" with the performance of anyone involved in unionizing and fire them as an early line of defense. They've done this with unionization attempts in the US before (at least one of those warehouses did successfully unionize despite that). Shutting down the FC and moving out of town is their nuke-it-from-orbit option when all else has failed.
Re: (Score:2)
They can't be fired, not outright. At least not without suffering penalties under the NLRA. Also it's still a revenue-positive business, so Arena devs aren't leeches.
Unionisation requires a monopoly on labour... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
However.
More recently, the track record for unions has been pretty dismal for a solid 50 years. Teachers unions are particularly bad. I’m in one. During COVID, the teachers unions were a big re
Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:1)
Re: Modern unions are not like the old unions (Score:2)
I wonder if people would have said the same negative things about "the good" unions that you ack helped change things that you are saying about "the bad" unions now.
For instance, unions were the largest thorn in the DOGE and Trump agenda and helped saved people from random and unnecessary cuts.
Re: (Score:1)
I wonder if people would have said the same negative things about "the good" unions that you ack helped change things that you are saying about "the bad" unions now.
For instance, unions were the largest thorn in the DOGE and Trump agenda and helped saved people from random and unnecessary cuts.
Actually, as we are increasingly learning, DOGE was just scratching the surface. Yes, it moved too fast at times, but massive waste and fraud in gov't is a problem. And we are learning more and more. Gov't unions are a part of the corruption. Famed and beloved liberal president, Franklin Roosevelt, the author of the new deal, social security, etc, defender and promotor of labor unions, was absolutely against gov't employees unionizing. His fears of corruption and inefficiency turned out to be true.
Re: (Score:2)
It doesn't require a monopoly. It just requires collective action. If employees across different studios organize under the same union, a collective strike could be effective leverage. But the asks of the union need to be less painful for the studios than it would be to have to hire and train hundreds of new workers.
Re:Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marxi (Score:4, Informative)
Seek help.
Re: (Score:1)
Obama broke his brain. Funny how it wasn't some other president doing the same shit. It's almost like there's something different about that guy to which he objects.
Re: (Score:1)
game devs are basically fascists: you can see this with their propaganda, which demands kids become gay and have no kids
Yes, you're right. I became gay in the 1990's from playing Doom and Quake, and so now I have no kids. Damn you, John Carmack!
Re:Game Devs are DEI and Marxist. Unions are Marxi (Score:5, Informative)
Unions are the new National Socialists, basically, same as 1939. Note: National SOCIALISTS were socialist. And, don't bother trying to persuade me they were somehow right wing.
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. They wanted to appeal to the working class. And it worked. But they were anything but socialists.
North Korea calls itself the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Does that mean it's a democratic country?
Re: (Score:2)
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. They wanted to appeal to the working class. And it worked. But they were anything but socialists.
That is not quite true. The nazis absolutely embraced ideas from the political left, as they embraced ideas from the political right. The nazis were opportunistic in that way, they would embrace any idea if it furthered their ability to attain or retain power. We tend to misunderstand them because we try to map them on our one dimensional lett-right political map. But the nazis thought of themselves as neither left nor right, they thought of themselves are a 3rd way. An enemy of both liberalism and conserva
Re: (Score:2)
The National Socialists in 1930s-40s Germany called themselves "socialists" for branding purposes. ... But they were anything but socialists.
OP is probably mentally ill, but he's not entirely wrong. If you look at the legislation Hitler passed before the war, there's a lot of worker friendly left wing stuff. It's very much socialist.
No, he's wrong. Hitler and the Nazis were no friends to the left. Shortly after they came to power, they banned all left wing parties: socialist, communist, and social democrat. Then they started arresting, imprisoning, and executing the members of those parties.
So what if they enacted legislation that benefitted workers? A fascist state needs workers to fulfill its nationalistic aspirations.
And the Nazis were textbook fascists. Not socialists. Their very core principles ran counter to socialistic principle
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
North Korea's name give me examples of two of my rules. First, I strongly believe that any nation that calls itself a "People's Republic" cares nothing about their citizens and second that any nation that feels the need to tell the world that it's democratic isn't. And, from what I've seen over the years about North Korea gives me no reason to change my mind.
Re: (Score:2)
Marxists hate unions. Just ask Lech Walesa.
https://youtu.be/NxsNU7ZZAlU?t... [youtu.be]
Re: WFH again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: WFH again? (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
People who can only get by with networking are not worth hiring, and a company that only hires though networking is not worth working for.
You absolutely misunderstood. He said that technical ability + networking is better than technical ability alone. As the GP states, its a known vs unknown thing.
Especially so when you have positions of leadership. Projects go astray more often due to "people issues" than "technical issues".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
And what I'm saying is that social skills should have nothing to do with the hiring process. If it makes a difference at your company then you will just end up wasting all your energy on it. It's not worth working there.
Social skills are necessary to work effectively on a team.
Social skills are necessary to work with "users" so you can discover their wants and needs and develop implementations they will be happy with.
Social skills are necessary to lead others.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Communications, verbal and non-verbal, are a key part of social skills.
Yes but that does not make those social skills.
Re-read "are a key part of social skills" :-)
Social skills refer to the act of socializing so that proople will like you.
I am speaking from the perspective of organizational behavior, not a frat party.
When people socialize they don't even necessarily say how they really feel.
The same is true for teammates, customers, etc.
The point is to be likable so they will give you things. It uses a totally different part of the brain than technical communications which would be the area for puzzle solving.
Technical skill are necessary but insufficient for teamwork, leadership, customer interaction, etc. It's not necessarily about being liked. Its also about being understood, trusted, effective communications, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd mod you up if I had points. Both you and Ol Olsoc are doing a good job trying to explain the value of social skills and why they are just as important as those technical skills and often times more important. Especially for a supervisor or manager.
It helps when your manager has done your job and has the technical chops but it's not strictly necessary for them to be "better" at it then myself. What is more important is for management to have the organizational and social skills to manage "people" while I
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
A demonstration of this is how I got my present position. It was known that I perform under pressure. It was known that I have top notch technical skills. It was known that I get along well with people. And that I do not intimidate easily.
My current position is 100% remote (because I want it to be so; a few of us are 100% WFH, but a majority of the employees are not so).
All of the things that you mention are known, and observed, about me. Even though I am 100% remote. Known and observed by my current coworkers, those who have left, and by our clients.
So yes, I have less "schmooze" networking. But plenty of the kind that matters, even though I am "just an avatar" (and would I want to work with people who care about the kind of schmoozing th
Re: WFH again? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect people who need networking that badly don't really have the skills and use socialization to manipulate people and get by.
Perhaps you think I need networking? I use networking. Then again, you didn't answer my question. Are you going to reject a known quantity for an unknown quantity? What happens if the unknown quantity is a terrible fit?
We hired a woman once, she came in looking like a up and coming hotshot. Impeccable dress and presentation. And her portfolio was impressive. (it was as an illustrator) We hired her.
She was acting. In real life she was a train wreck. Ended up getting laid off in a downturn.
In another
Re: (Score:2)
Or they're like me, and have Schizoid Personality Disorder. We work well on our own and can't "schmooze" like normal people. Or at least, we don't tolerate all that dramatic office bullshit.
But yeah... weird people who do well in remote settings are "manipulative". Form my perspective, it's the exact opposite. It's a normal part of the human condition to manipulate the feelings of others... for better or for worse. Some of us don't care about your feelings and just want to get the job done.
Yeah, go ahe
Re: (Score:2)
I think I got confused by what you meant by "networking". Networking, as in social networking in the workplace, not computer networking as in working from home.
I apologize for that.
I still find it hard to understand why people are dumping all over Ol Olsoc. He's not wrong. Whether we like it or not, people are social beings, and if you lack those skills, you're going to have a really hard time getting by in life. Companies will always favor people with good social skills even if they're not good at doin
Re: (Score:2)
A demonstration of this is how I got my present position. It was known that I perform under pressure. It was known that I have top notch technical skills. It was known that I get along well with people. And that I do not intimidate easily.
My current position is 100% remote (because I want it to be so; a few of us are 100% WFH, but a majority of the employees are not so).
All of the things that you mention are known, and observed, about me. Even though I am 100% remote. Known and observed by my current coworkers, those who have left, and by our clients.
So yes, I have less "schmooze" networking. But plenty of the kind that matters, even though I am "just an avatar" (and would I want to work with people who care about the kind of schmoozing that shouldn't matter?). Well worth the tradeoffs for me.
Then I am happy for you. I'm not saying that people shouldn't work from home - full time if they can get a job where they do not ever have to be. around co-workers. What is your projected career trajectory? Are you satisfied to be in your position until retirement? Also, how do you do professional development? All from home?
I point out some advantages of onsite work - and those points tend to be very unpopular in here. Especially when I mention going out for socialization with fellow employees. And I go
Re: (Score:2)
I suspect you are not young anymore. You've had at least a decade or two to really establish yourself and your work history very likely supports this. You probably aren't really trying to climb that ladder and are more likely in a role that fits you well and hopefully compensates you appropriately.
For much younger folks, they might have some of those technical skills but if they don't have the social skills and face time with seasoned employees, they will struggle to grow. Some may do fine WFH but there is
Re:WFH again? (Score:4, Insightful)
Not everyone lives to work. If you're saving enough, the life improvements from working from home far outweigh the promotion and networking 'opportunities'.
If you were fully remote you could have moved to a lower cost of living area, closer to friends/family, or to a part of the country you preferred. The savings from that can drastically reduce the amount of years before retirement or improve your social life with the people you actually care about.
If your employees can't listen to their boss then they should be fired. Being only an avatar shouldn't matter. Everyone's supposed to be adults working towards a common goal. Granted I know real life isn't always like that, but that's what you should be working towards.
Re: (Score:2)
Granted I know real life isn't always like that
Exactly!
WFH has it's place and it's probably fine for those who are set in their career, don't want to move up and are happy with where they are at financially, etc.
This sounds like a 40+ mentality and that's fine. The same advice for kids, ahem, sorry, 22 year old adults, isn't the same you give to the person with decades of work experience.
I imagine hybrid work would be a good fit for a lot of companies. Productive WFH days and bullshit meeting days in the office. Each job is different of course.
Re: (Score:2)
I do like my WFH time, less distractions, my home office is really nice, and most of the time, I'm super productive. But without the in-person time, it wouldn't work anywhere near as well. The networking is kinda critical, especially since I have to issue orders, and who is going to pay instant attention to someone that is only an avatar?
I've done it for most of my career, probably 20 of 35 years, including the near-decade I was a manager -- and I was WFH full-time, not half-time (1000 miles from the office). I did try to get onsite for a week every couple of months. Making it work requires a lot of overcommunication, but it can be done.
Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:4, Insightful)
For most roles in the process, WFH should be very desirable to an employer, so long as the employee signs an appropriate contract indicating that they're obligated to come to the office should their home setup be inadequate for supporting WFH, including mandatory local installations of whatever communications and collaboration tool you decide to employ.
Maybe you require them to attend a certain number of in-person meetings or team building exercises (but not 3/week, I'm talking monthly or less).
It saves on office space and related expenses. Throw up a suitable server farm and have employees remote in - all the horsepower, storage, and data security of a data center, it's potentially more secure than a cubicle farm.
Forcing RTO is just a way to fire people without having to admit you replaced them with a lower quality but much less expensive AI.
Re: Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:3)
>forcing rtoâ¦
Is really about the real estate. Vacant space is a liability. Sometimes useful as such, sometimes not. In most orgs right now, not that many folks are actually doing the work. CSR, some front end developers. Most of the rest are shuffling papers and having meetings and âoenetworking.â Occupancy and real estate development are largely investment games.
Weâ(TM)ve known at least since the 1950s that industries like insurance (not the same as utilizing the economics of r
Re: Game Dev and Remote Work (Score:5, Interesting)
I provide IT support to insurance brokerages - you may or not be surprised to find that since COVID, they're continuing to convert to WFO.
Especially for the boutique shops, I doubt an RTO office can compete financially with one structured under a WFH model.
Re: (Score:2)
Damnit. WFH.
I knew what I meant!
Re: (Score:2)
I knew what I meant!
We haven't even perfected the "do what I say" interface, and I don't think we'll have the "do what I mean" interface in our lifetimes.
Not this decade (Score:3)
I would be happy to be incorrect here, but I think this is doomed to fail in the near future. Historically developers have been willing to put up with a lot rather grueling work standards for the prestige of working on a major video game. While some of these measures, like "crunch time" have become high profile enough that pushback has reined in their use, there are still a lot more young developers that want to work in the industry than senior folks with the credentials to demand better treatment. Combined with a lot of major studios eyeing AI for the non-creative work of game development and I don't see where the devs have a strong foundation to negotiate from.
Re: (Score:2)
These are my thoughts as well. With the advent of AI (for developers, for designers, for graphics artists), there's a strong chance that there could be a surplus of labor relative to demand, and they won't have much leverage. In fact, since all of the production of a video game is necessarily digital, these jobs could just be pushed overseas.
There's also a factor about competition: There have been a number of games over the past few years (Valheim, Vampire Survivors, Megabonk) made by just a few devel
Re: (Score:2)
Proven ability from a list of game credits goes a long way in the industry. The job is more to do with knowing how to get stuff done effectively, and dealing with collaboration issues, than about raw talent.
Also you can't really threaten to fire people (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
you can't really offshore anything that you haven't already offshored because at some point you need people to make art that resonates with the locals.
Well, it seems many western video game companies had no intention of "resonating with the locals", but instead became openly hostile towards their former customers (like the Ubisoft CEO telling his now former customers to "get used to not owning their games"). Which resulted in some epic flops from the west (like "Concord" etc.), while some far east productions (like "Black Myth Wukong" or "Crimson Desert") "resonated with the locals" enough to make them big successes. And that was not because those Asian c
Re: (Score:2)
That doesn't make any sense.
So, when you need ... (Score:2)
What are you negotiating? (Score:2)
If it includes salaries, that's where it'll trip up. The difference between mediocrity and excellence is so pronounced that it's almost impossible to agree. The best won't agree, and will move on if it is implemented in any of the usual tiered structures.
You need to be able to pay for talent, and often that's antithetical to union philosophy.
Re: (Score:2)
My father worked in the retail grocery industry in LA in the '50s and '60s. Always in union shops, and once he'd established himself the never worked for scale. He always negotiated a higher rate and his bosses will willing to negotiate because his reputation was that good. Eventually, he moved up into management, but he kept his union membership for the medical and pension benefits. I might add that as he was no
maybe not the 1794 idea (Score:2)
The corporation will abuse the hell out of you if you don't impose limits
But the classic "union" is most likely a socialist scammer leader and his crones demanding money from you to "protect your rights".
However, we're in the future, we have chats, we have anonymous chats. you can very well create a leaderless, peerless, mostly anonymous movement that coordinate actions to improve the working conditions.
It's the ol "power corrupts" thing.