I’m all for unions. But I’m not sure how it translates to good for players. Unions exist for fair wages and working environment, not direction of how games should be made.
Edit: People sure seem to get the wrong impression with my question. As I said in the very first line, I am for unions. They’re great and we should strive for fair working wages and hours, especially in 2023 where wages are stagnating while having massive inflation. We should have happy employees and I prefer my games made by happy employees. Failure to keep the wages up is creating shit ton of societal problems.
Issue is the delusion people are presenting here. Unions are not magic. It doesn’t automatically improve unrelated things. What people are missing is that there is no evidence the union has ever advocated for a better product. If one exists, despite my desperate attempt to find one, then it’s clearly a fringe case. All the replies are making a huge logical leap of simply saying happy worker produces better product with no reasoning behind it. Unions never argue for better product. That’s just not what unions do. It argues for the betterment of workers.
Unionizing increases productivity for some sectors. But they’re usually rare and only seen in specific industries. They generally have no significant impact on productivity based on research. If it straight up increased productivity and made better products, every company would love it. The argument is counter-logical. Companies do what is efficient. Even if we assumed individual productivity is increased, there’s still no evidence that these individuals would have the capacity to change the direction in which the product is being made in the upper tier.
Seems like people who are being fairly compensated in a comfortable work environment will make a better game than people being underpaid and overworked?
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The reason wages are low is because the games industry attracts a lot of talent, so companies can get good talent for less. So I don’t expect unionizing to help in terms of quality of work produced, but it should improve wages and working conditions.
Quality of a product is not just a result of quality of talent (see: “I hate sand.”). Management, direction, and quality of life of the talent has a profound impact. If you want the highest quality product, especially in an industry that requires collaboration, you want your talent to be happy.
Maybe, but I feel like any quality gains would be minimal since people are already passionate about their roles (else why would those roles be so desired?). Then again, the Valve model really works, so it really depends on whether unions can change company culture, or if they’ll just secure better working hours and pay. The culture is the problem, and I’m not convinced a union can fix that.
Huh, well fear is a very different thing than stress. Once your stress turns into fear, you’re no longer personally invested in the project and are merely concerned about your own survival.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours. This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won’t be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Then again, I don’t have a lot of details to go on, just that there’s allegations of “fear” at Daedelic.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours.
That’s called exploitation, plain and simple. It’s predatory behavior. They are knowingly under-compensating and over-working people, knowing that they can get away with it because of this passion. Say the same about just about any other industry and it’s clear how unacceptable it is. Beyond that, stress, objectively, causes unnecessary illness and death, as proven in decades worth of scientific studies.
This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won’t be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Bad management is literally one of the foundational reasons that unions exist in the first place. Management and capital have a significant power imbalance with workers and have, historically and currently, attempted to establish workplace environments and situations that are more exploitative. Collective bargaining is necessary to even the odds and allow for workers to air grievances and get them resolved, without punitive action.
I never said it wasn’t. My point was just that unionizing isn’t necessarily going to improve the end product. It would most likely improve working conditions and employee happiness, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into better games. In fact, it could do the opposite since it would be harder to get rid of poor performers.
With or without a union, improving wages and working conditions will improve productivity and the quality of the products being produced. This is an almost universal truth in research on the topic.
No, it doesn’t. Pushing people to burn out doesn’t make more or better products, it just burns people out. People are more productive when they have work life balance
As someone in the industry I feel the opposite. A lot of features that are almost finished but cut despite being integral to the experience come from higher up pressure. The expectation to always overwork leaves no room to commit a little bit extra when it’s necessary because you’re always drained to begin with. There is also no room for creativity, playing around, or polish, because the deadlines are based on the bare minimum that will sell.
Of course unions can and do have more power in the direction of the game. Employees can also voice concerns to managers and owners without the fear of a bullshit termination. They’re pretty awesome for everyone.
I love how this thread grouping is essentially argueing that the ends justify the means. Yeah, lets give a pass to companies in the name of capitalism.
would you prefer games to be made by shareholders and execs or people who are passionate about making games and telling stories? when decisions are unilaterally made from the top down the quality of the product suffers, just look at nearly every AAA release from the last decade that have half-baked stories and enough bugs to make me start singing Hakuna Matata.
Somehow they think less work means more game. I dunno, we’re way too deep into a circle jerk to hear any other opinions. Good for you to actually speak the obvious. Unions actually cure cancer too.
I’m all for unions. But I’m not sure how it translates to good for players. Unions exist for fair wages and working environment, not direction of how games should be made.
Edit: People sure seem to get the wrong impression with my question. As I said in the very first line, I am for unions. They’re great and we should strive for fair working wages and hours, especially in 2023 where wages are stagnating while having massive inflation. We should have happy employees and I prefer my games made by happy employees. Failure to keep the wages up is creating shit ton of societal problems.
Issue is the delusion people are presenting here. Unions are not magic. It doesn’t automatically improve unrelated things. What people are missing is that there is no evidence the union has ever advocated for a better product. If one exists, despite my desperate attempt to find one, then it’s clearly a fringe case. All the replies are making a huge logical leap of simply saying happy worker produces better product with no reasoning behind it. Unions never argue for better product. That’s just not what unions do. It argues for the betterment of workers.
Unionizing increases productivity for some sectors. But they’re usually rare and only seen in specific industries. They generally have no significant impact on productivity based on research. If it straight up increased productivity and made better products, every company would love it. The argument is counter-logical. Companies do what is efficient. Even if we assumed individual productivity is increased, there’s still no evidence that these individuals would have the capacity to change the direction in which the product is being made in the upper tier.
We need unions. But unions aren’t magic.
Seems like people who are being fairly compensated in a comfortable work environment will make a better game than people being underpaid and overworked?
I don’t think that’s necessarily true. The reason wages are low is because the games industry attracts a lot of talent, so companies can get good talent for less. So I don’t expect unionizing to help in terms of quality of work produced, but it should improve wages and working conditions.
Quality of a product is not just a result of quality of talent (see: “I hate sand.”). Management, direction, and quality of life of the talent has a profound impact. If you want the highest quality product, especially in an industry that requires collaboration, you want your talent to be happy.
Maybe, but I feel like any quality gains would be minimal since people are already passionate about their roles (else why would those roles be so desired?). Then again, the Valve model really works, so it really depends on whether unions can change company culture, or if they’ll just secure better working hours and pay. The culture is the problem, and I’m not convinced a union can fix that.
Here’s an example for you: https://www.ign.com/articles/new-report-makes-disturbing-allegations-against-the-lord-of-the-rings-gollum-developer
Huh, well fear is a very different thing than stress. Once your stress turns into fear, you’re no longer personally invested in the project and are merely concerned about your own survival.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours. This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won’t be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Then again, I don’t have a lot of details to go on, just that there’s allegations of “fear” at Daedelic.
That’s called exploitation, plain and simple. It’s predatory behavior. They are knowingly under-compensating and over-working people, knowing that they can get away with it because of this passion. Say the same about just about any other industry and it’s clear how unacceptable it is. Beyond that, stress, objectively, causes unnecessary illness and death, as proven in decades worth of scientific studies.
Bad management is literally one of the foundational reasons that unions exist in the first place. Management and capital have a significant power imbalance with workers and have, historically and currently, attempted to establish workplace environments and situations that are more exploitative. Collective bargaining is necessary to even the odds and allow for workers to air grievances and get them resolved, without punitive action.
I never said it wasn’t. My point was just that unionizing isn’t necessarily going to improve the end product. It would most likely improve working conditions and employee happiness, but that doesn’t necessarily translate into better games. In fact, it could do the opposite since it would be harder to get rid of poor performers.
With or without a union, improving wages and working conditions will improve productivity and the quality of the products being produced. This is an almost universal truth in research on the topic.
Less crunch, more realistic deadlines, less unnecessary scope. Makes better games
Realistically this just means games get released with less or unfinished features/content.
No, it doesn’t. Pushing people to burn out doesn’t make more or better products, it just burns people out. People are more productive when they have work life balance
As someone in the industry I feel the opposite. A lot of features that are almost finished but cut despite being integral to the experience come from higher up pressure. The expectation to always overwork leaves no room to commit a little bit extra when it’s necessary because you’re always drained to begin with. There is also no room for creativity, playing around, or polish, because the deadlines are based on the bare minimum that will sell.
Based on what evidence?
They have the ability to raise the standards of quality of the finished product.
Of course unions can and do have more power in the direction of the game. Employees can also voice concerns to managers and owners without the fear of a bullshit termination. They’re pretty awesome for everyone.
I love how this thread grouping is essentially argueing that the ends justify the means. Yeah, lets give a pass to companies in the name of capitalism.
I do not think end justifies the means. And companies should not be given a pass in the name of capitalism. Where are people coming up with this?
“How can I make this about me?”
would you prefer games to be made by shareholders and execs or people who are passionate about making games and telling stories? when decisions are unilaterally made from the top down the quality of the product suffers, just look at nearly every AAA release from the last decade that have half-baked stories and enough bugs to make me start singing Hakuna Matata.
I said I’m for unions. Strangely people replying to me seems to be ignoring my very first line.
But there’s no evidence that unionized workers wouldn’t make shit games just as well.
Somehow they think less work means more game. I dunno, we’re way too deep into a circle jerk to hear any other opinions. Good for you to actually speak the obvious. Unions actually cure cancer too.