4 ms·

No, Unions are not the issue here. Collective bargaining would not yield Tom Cruise-like returns or even exceptional returns. The reason is that devs are ulti

No, Unions are not the issue here. Collective bargaining would not yield Tom Cruise-like returns or even exceptional returns. The reason is that devs are ultimately a commodity. Actors, by the way - even good ones - are even more of a commodity. There are tons of spectacular actors who would work cheap. What brings in the audience is not the quality of the acting, it's the familiarity of the person, or the 'living brand'. The 'human being Tom Cruise' obviously has the most amazing, unbreakable IP protection on the 'brand Tom Cruise'. And it's the 'brand Tom Cruise' that has value. (And He only has to be a decent actor, not a even a great one) Unions might help with some things ... but generally that's not going to be it. The other thing to consider is the hugely risky and hit-driven nature of the business. Any 'investor' in games is risking so much, that the returns may be a little biased. Consider that even for a game that 'made a lot of money' - it still may not be rational to have invested in that game! It still maybe overall a 'bad investment' to invest in such things.

chongli 8y ago
I don't see AAA video games as inherently more risky than big budget films. I also don't think you have to reach Tom Cruise levels of success to be better off than a game developer. A union could do a lot for those who work in the game industry. Game developers work such insane hours during crunch time when there's really no need for it. With a union mandating a standard work week, the onus would be put on the producers of the game to plan effectively in order to meet a deadline. Game producers would have us all believe that games are uniquely complicated in a way that sets them apart from films and requires such ridiculous time commitments. That's rubbish. The vast majority of the work that goes into a triple A game is asset creation (graphics and sound). This makes games extremely similar to films which are dominated by CG and post-production work these days.
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  That's a good point. Though I don't know if I'm sure about the risk, it would be good to see some data on that. Some games, especially follow ons of well established 'game brands' I can see as being less risky ... but for new titles? But yes, there's no reason for the countless hours, that's basically just taking advantage of creatives no doubt and admittedly unions may help in some way.

chongli 8y ago

I don't see AAA video games as inherently more risky than big budget films. I also don't think you have to reach Tom Cruise levels of success to be better off than a game developer. A union could do a lot for those who work in the game industry. Game developers work such insane hours during crunch time when there's really no need for it. With a union mandating a standard work week, the onus would be put on the producers of the game to plan effectively in order to meet a deadline. Game producers would have us all believe that games are uniquely complicated in a way that sets them apart from films and requires such ridiculous time commitments. That's rubbish. The vast majority of the work that goes into a triple A game is asset creation (graphics and sound). This makes games extremely similar to films which are dominated by CG and post-production work these days.

sonnyblarney 8y ago
That's a good point. Though I don't know if I'm sure about the risk, it would be good to see some data on that. Some games, especially follow ons of well established 'game brands' I can see as being less risky ... but for new titles? But yes, there's no reason for the countless hours, that's basically just taking advantage of creatives no doubt and admittedly unions may help in some way.