3 ms·

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 ac

by 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.
  - yummyfajitas 16y ago
    If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it. I'm not a game programmer, but I do work long hours. Why would losing one of my competitive advantages would make me happy? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! If this can be done, there is nothing preventing you from doing so now and gaining a competitive advantage over other companies (better working conditions + equal productivity == better employees). So why aren't you getting rich by doing this right now?

by gte910h 16y ago

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.
- yummyfajitas 16y ago
  If the collectively bargained for normal working hours, I bet most of them would be ecstatic to get it. I'm not a game programmer, but I do work long hours. Why would losing one of my competitive advantages would make me happy? Perhaps we'll just produce them differently! If this can be done, there is nothing preventing you from doing so now and gaining a competitive advantage over other companies (better working conditions + equal productivity == better employees). So why aren't you getting rich by doing this right now?