5 ms·

Game programmers choose their work environment they could easily be paid more and work less hours by using their skills in other industries, but they choose not

Game programmers choose their work environment they could easily be paid more and work less hours by using their skills in other industries, but they choose not too. A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours. Entertainment seems to require massive amount of work in relatively short bursts. Those who can figure out a way to not need this will quickly get the best talent and destroy their competition. What would a union do? Take their money? Have them go on strike? Bankrupt the company? Make it harder to fire crappy programmers (as if it isn't hard enough already).

gte910h 16y ago
>A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours. And almost everyone in the movie industry is union as well. For the same reason (highly desired jobs allowing for crazy abuse of the workers). Actually movie industry programming (Special effects, etc), are actually very tame compared to many other forms of programming as far as hours go, especially compared to video games, which is another place some of those skills they have could be applied. The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc.
- dantheman 16y ago
  Anyone can create a company that does that, and if they're successful then that's great. Creating games in under 40 hours a week: http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc. The point would be to harm society for the benefit of union members?
  - gte910h 16y ago
    As opposed to harming the programmers for the benefit of society? If that truly was the choice, yes, I'd be all for giving less of a benefit to society over actually harming programmers. I don't think that is true however. As many people have successfully developed software in general, and games in particular, with 40 hour weeks, I believe the overtime shops are throwing hours at a problem that has other solutions. By forcing game companies to have the same overtime type regulations that almost every other sort of company has, you make those solutions mandatory. If you think I'm full of it, perhaps you should look at EA: They peeled back from massive overtime, and now "only" do stupid hours 2 months a year (down from 4-8 months a year). Evidently, those stupid overtime hours weren't needed. Holywood has unionized. Notice movies are still made. Sitcoms are still made. Nothing stopped there. Occasionally there is a strike or something, and we watch reruns.
    - yummyfajitas 16y ago
      How are the programmers harmed? They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun. If they are willing to out compete you by putting in long hours, who are you to tell them "no, that's unfair competition, you don't have the right to work harder than me?" I'm sorry, but forcing everyone to work at union levels of laziness is a bad idea. The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games, a few more lazy people become game programmers, and a few hardworking people are crowded out of game programming and go work on wall st. As for Hollywood unions, to show they are not harmful, you must show we would get the same number/quality of movies at the same price. GM makes cars in spite of having a union, they are just crappier/more expensive than Toyota. Many supermarkets still sell food in spite of a union, they are just more expensive than Walmart.
      - gte910h 16y ago
        >They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun. They are voluntarily are harming themselves. It's still harm. Their marriages don't last/are very strained, their health declines from long amounts of chair time, bad food and long hours. If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it. > The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games Perhaps? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! And even if we do, they're just video games. It's okay if we create less of them in order to produce them without harming everyone involved to do so. I'm sure if we took off all the safety regulations, employee regulations, and negotiated employee agreements we'd have cheaper oil and more of it. Doesn't make that a good either.

gte910h 16y ago

>A lot of them choose that environment just people involved in movies and television work crazy hours. And almost everyone in the movie industry is union as well. For the same reason (highly desired jobs allowing for crazy abuse of the workers). Actually movie industry programming (Special effects, etc), are actually very tame compared to many other forms of programming as far as hours go, especially compared to video games, which is another place some of those skills they have could be applied. The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc.

dantheman 16y ago
Anyone can create a company that does that, and if they're successful then that's great. Creating games in under 40 hours a week: http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt http://archives.igda.org/qol/IGDA_2005_GDC-QOL-Lecture.ppt
yummyfajitas 16y ago
The point would be to require sane amounts of hours, feature cuts rather than overtime, etc. The point would be to harm society for the benefit of union members?
- gte910h 16y ago
  As opposed to harming the programmers for the benefit of society? If that truly was the choice, yes, I'd be all for giving less of a benefit to society over actually harming programmers. I don't think that is true however. As many people have successfully developed software in general, and games in particular, with 40 hour weeks, I believe the overtime shops are throwing hours at a problem that has other solutions. By forcing game companies to have the same overtime type regulations that almost every other sort of company has, you make those solutions mandatory. If you think I'm full of it, perhaps you should look at EA: They peeled back from massive overtime, and now "only" do stupid hours 2 months a year (down from 4-8 months a year). Evidently, those stupid overtime hours weren't needed. Holywood has unionized. Notice movies are still made. Sitcoms are still made. Nothing stopped there. Occasionally there is a strike or something, and we watch reruns.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    How are the programmers harmed? They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun. If they are willing to out compete you by putting in long hours, who are you to tell them "no, that's unfair competition, you don't have the right to work harder than me?" I'm sorry, but forcing everyone to work at union levels of laziness is a bad idea. The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games, a few more lazy people become game programmers, and a few hardworking people are crowded out of game programming and go work on wall st. As for Hollywood unions, to show they are not harmful, you must show we would get the same number/quality of movies at the same price. GM makes cars in spite of having a union, they are just crappier/more expensive than Toyota. Many supermarkets still sell food in spite of a union, they are just more expensive than Walmart.
    - gte910h 16y ago
      >They are voluntarily choosing to put in long hours in return for salary+fun. They are voluntarily are harming themselves. It's still harm. Their marriages don't last/are very strained, their health declines from long amounts of chair time, bad food and long hours. If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it. > The net result will simply be that we produce lower quality video games Perhaps? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! And even if we do, they're just video games. It's okay if we create less of them in order to produce them without harming everyone involved to do so. I'm sure if we took off all the safety regulations, employee regulations, and negotiated employee agreements we'd have cheaper oil and more of it. Doesn't make that a good either.