Slashdot Mirror
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."
The sound of Electronic Arts fat-cats screaming "NOOOOOOOOOO!" echoes through the night...
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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
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.
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.
Acting stupid isn't much fun when there's someone around who knows better
It used to be 4 guys working on a game in Texas...Working in the little spare time they could find after their day jobs
Before that it was 2 guys hunched over an Amiga in a basement, working after high school got out.
And before that it was one guy working out of his apartment.
Maybe Sharewhare needs a comeback
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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
They're probably more likely screaming "OOOOUUUTSOURCING!!!".
As an artist in the industry, this is both scary and sad.
Here is an important fact about union membership in the United States. Most members are forced to join (that is, they will lose their job if they refuse to pay union dues). After they are forced to join, they are forced to give money to political candidates and lobbyists. I strongly feel that donating to political candidates that go against your interest should NOT be a condition of employment. The ideal situation is to reform the labor laws so no worker is threatened with firing for refusing to join OR for joining a union. Barring that, forced political donations should be eliminated in order to protect the unwilling members. I have nothing against organizations getting politically active, unless membership in the organization is coerced.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
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.
You have a good point. So much TV production is now done in Canada, because the unions in California have encouraged production outfits to stay out of Hollywood. "X Files" is a famous example.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
I say we all go on strike until these demands are met. Gamers of the world, UNITE!
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.
"I am a kernel in the linux army"
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.
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?
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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
It took me well into your fourth paragraph before I was certain that you weren't absolutely, completely, doggedly serious.
concrete5: a cms made for marketing, but strong enough for geeks.
The reason there are so many 'problems' with game programming work life is there are far too many people willing to do it. Programmers who work for game companies either a)own the company or have a vested interest in it and are willing to put crazy hours into it to make it succede or b)wage slaves who are willing to put up with lots of long hours just for the chance to make a video game. Unionization won't make the pool of people wanting to make games go down.
If you want good hours, pay, benefits, etc... work for non-gaming company... financial, aerospace, whatever.
"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.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
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.
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. Union brought her back.
Keebler cookie factory. Worker liked to beat up on other workers. You guessed it: the union kept him from being fired.
What use is there for a union that protects and encourages the worst behavior?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
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.
... given that Ubisoft is based in Québec, where labour laws are progressive enough to have allowed the unionization of several Wall-Marde stores...
I don't know much about Quebec in this regard. Does the labor law force workers to join unions as a condition of employment? Or is this decision left to each individual worker?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Sorry about the writing. Robot fingers, you know? Cliff Steele in DOOM PATROL #23
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.
> if you're in that industry, you almost certainly don't live in a low cost area
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 the net. The difference is that you would all be self-employed, and be working not for a paycheck but for a share of future profits.
> is like telling a guy who isn't happy working as an architect
> building houses that he should give it up and build doghouses
Why is that everyone is so brainwashed today that they think you need a movie-quality flashy 3D game to be sellable? Of all my favorite games, not a SINGLE ONE fits that profile. As I keep saying: flashy expensive graphics don't matter. The game matters. It matters what the story is about. It matters if gameplay is exciting. It matters if you can play the game more than once. None of these things depend on expensive presentation. Hell, people still play nethack, which has no graphics at all!
So if something looks expensive, consider whether the game actually needs it. Chances are it does not. What a good artist can design on his own free time is perfectly adequate, if not better than the expensive design team EA would hire. Look at the fan-made Sims objects: you can actually play the game that pretty much everything you see on the screen is not made by EA, and looking better than the stuff that is. When you are thinking of bad graphics, what you are really thinking about is atrocious stuff like freeciv graphics, which are truly horrid. Or Lincity; yuck! Both of these, IMO were made by the developers, who never learned to draw or match colors.
> it's not the same kind of product as a professional console game is these days.
And that's another thing: why would anyone want to play console games? You have this great high-resolution monitor, and you would rather use a grainy old TV?!? Are you people crazy? Then there are those flimsy controllers; how can you possibly play, say Civilization, with only a joystick and a few buttons?
Why would you want to develop console games? When you do, you have to have a publisher to manufacture them. You need to get shelf placements in some store. You'd have actual manufacturing costs eating your profits. With a PC game all you need is a website from which the game could be bought and downloaded. No fuss, no bother.
> There is always going to be the demand for the
> polish and depth of the professional version
I wasn't saying that there should be no big game companies. Who do you take me for, a deluded GPL fanatic? Of course there will be large game companies. The point is that people will still buy a good game even if it doesn't look like a billion dollar movie. Hell, I never even consider buying any of those; they are boring and they are all alike.
> but it's not the same kind of product. It's just not.
Damn right. It's the kind of product smart people want to play.
> Where do you live that you have property taxes of 1k/year?
I have a four bedroom house in Norfolk VA and I pay $840/year in taxes.
> Own the house you live in... so youre minimum 55?
I'm 28 and paid it off three years ago. Not everyone is as bad at money management as you are. But you're in luck; I'm an expert at living on next to nothing, (since I've put all my money into the mortgage) so read on!
> With your reasoning, people at the poverty level should be living comfortably.
Damn right they should. Even if they only quit drinking they'd save thousands every year.
> you are not including a car
If you are living in a small town, which is what I had in mind, you don't need one. Walk. Ride a bike. It's good for you. I've been able to buy pretty much anything I wanted by walking from every place I ever lived, including Seattle. It may sound strange to you, but walking six miles is not all that bad, and food can always be found closer than that. I walked to the store every weekend.
> You are not including insurance of any sort
That's right. I don't have any. You didn't think that insurance actually saves you any money, did you? Whenever you get reimbursement for disaster, they raise their rates and make it up later. Don't burn your house, and you won't need to insure it. Teach your kids not to play with matches. Until you're 40 or so you don't need health insurance; just don't do anything dangerous. It's not hard; you probably aren't doing anything dangerous now. Car insurance? No car, no insurance. Anything else?
> internet access
Buy a limited calling plan for $10 (did you know the phone company has cheap calling plans?) and a cheap dialup for $9. That's another $228/year. Negligible, but yes, I should have included it.
> retirement savings
While you are in this situation you won't have any. Your work is your retirement savings. When you sell the game, you can, and should, put some away into savings and investments.
> I guess your kid doesn't need clothes
I guess you've never been to a thrift shop where you can buy her an entire wardrobe for $30. Learn to sew so you can make alterations as she grows. A sewing machine will cost you $50 in a thrift shop. In fact, your mother probably has one already, so borrow it.
> or to play any sports
You don't need any money to play sports. You need money only if you want to buy fancy uniforms and such, in which case see the previous paragraph. A decent baseball bat can be made from a 2x4. A basketball costs $5. A hoop can be made from scrap metal from your basement (every old house has lots of junk in the basement) and a couple of 2x4s. Etc, etc, etc.
> do anything else a kid does (like have toys).
(begin old man voice) You know, when I was a kid, we didn't have no toys. (end old man voice) The right answer is that you teach your kids to make their own toys. Yes, it will mean that they will have to constantly look at all those "other kids whose daddies always buy stuff". It also means they will turn to more wholesome entertainments like reading books (which is one of the great reasons, IMHO, to not have a TV), playing outside and learning about nature (you know, that green stuff you learned about in high school), playing board games (I still have a Monopoly that I made all by myself at the age of eight), playing sports with their friends, and generally having a great time in spite of not having the latest Barbie.
> Good luck selling your wife on this lifestyle.
If your wife is a high society spoiled child, then probably not. For everyone else, it should work. You have to keep in mind that the lifestyle I'm describing is temporary. When you sell the game, you'll be rich again. You might also consider having your wife work while you write the game. Even a minimum wage job will have you living well if you don't expect to live like a lord.
> Publishers exist for a reason
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 keeping the company in businesses just as much as the company". Union greed has brought many companies to ruin, or near ruin. This is the obvious result when labor costs spiral out of control and have nothing to do with value of the work being done.
This happens because unions are too powerful. Many of them, such as the AFL-CIO and UAW, operate with stolen money. Most members are forced to join. Workers are forced to join and pay against their will. If union membership was the choice of each worker, only then would unions be any sort of legitimate representative.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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 union but were forced to join in order to work).
"Companies have no problem about uniting their capital in order to squish the workers"
That rings of invalid Marxian social science fiction, that has nothing to do with how the world works.
What is so horrible about letting the workers decide?
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Hey! Corporations! Here! Here! Exploit *us*, not them! Pretty please...
perception is reality
> But the game play, and complexity of the objects
:). You see the same sort of bad art in Lincity and freeciv (both of which have the additional problem of really bad gameplay experience).
> 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 like to emphasize that while movie-quality graphics are worthless, putting at least some artistic effort into your game is a good idea. Castle of The Winds graphics are something one should be ashamed to put on the game box. Really; if you can't draw a good picture, find someone who can. There are plenty of unemployed graphic artists out there. In fact, chances are that there are more of them then there are programmers.
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 qualifications. The analogy is even more relevant considering that all of the organizations blow millions on politics. This includes the union. Your last line would better read: "The Southern Baptist Church or ACLU don't bargain for your wage, benefits, work hours. The union does. However, like the Baptists and ACLU, the union also spends a huge amount of money on political causes that you might not agree with."
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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 laid off because he had never fired a real hookshot, and those worthless would-be Doom programmers who have no idea what it is like to fight for your life against a real Revenant.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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 what it is doing. Closed-shop unions have much less incentive to serve their members.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
"States that have laws preventing Unions from "forcing" people into Unions have really Weak Unions and hence no benefits from Unions"
The unions are weaker since they aren't stealing money from people being forced to join them. As for "hence no benefits", that is the union doing a lousy job at serving workers.
"People always have the choice to not work the position"
If they are qualified, why keep them from this job? Isn't it kind of screwed up to keep people from jobs they are good at because of some political dispute that has nothing to do with how they can do the job?
"It is a vaild suggestion to prevent Unions from giving to politcal causes, but wouldn't this single out Unions from a lot of other groups"
The unions are unique in that most of the members are forced to join. This special situation warrants special circumstances so the unions become like legitimate organizations where no one is forced to give to political causes. Again, if the particular union has voluntary membership (and many many do!), it should be able to do whatever it wants to with political funds. Then there is no question of abuse of rights.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
They have themselves to thank, for their own hard work, not the dwindling unions that control 10% of the workforce.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Thank you. Don't mind if I do. That's the best thing you've said all evening. Cheers!
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
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.
Ed R.Zahurak
You know, oblivion keeps looking better every day.
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.
Http://gamewatch.org/ - up by June Surely they'll have their arse sued off?
-Why is Australia, New Zealand and Canada becoming THE places to shoot a film?
Because they're not unionized there.
-Which famous director is generally FORBIDDEN from directing a TV show because he's not part of (and refuses to be part of) the DGA?
Quentin Tarantino
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?
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.Why not? It certainly would support our quality of life, as prices would go down due to lower labor costs.
Don't blame Durga. I voted for Centauri.
Sounds like its time to rise against the bourgeois proletariat... So here's a rather interesting simulation...
That is from the work of the late-19th Century sociologist Max Weber, who pointed out that bureaucracies tend to end up *becoming* the problem that they were originally created to solve. He was also the first to point out that the average bureaucracy grows at a rate of about 5% per year.
The classic reference is to the US Dept of Agriculture. When it was first created, there were a million farmers and only a few bureaucrats. Now, the numbers are exactly reversed.
DNA is a Turing machine. You, however, being dynamic and emergent, are not.