8 ms·

As someone who's been in the game industry a while, I can see where this is coming from. This is not about software devs, it's a special challenge specific to g

As someone who's been in the game industry a while, I can see where this is coming from. This is not about software devs, it's a special challenge specific to game devs where the lower pay and higher overtime expectations really affect people's lives. This is then made worse as studios keep closing down, because people will put up with more bs than usual for job stability. No idea if unions are the solution, but this is definitely an issue specific to the game industry right now.

walshemj 8y ago
And I suspect that having sfx and vfx unionised which game dev is closer to might help.
jsgo 8y ago
I didn't go into game development, even though that's why I started to learn programming, precisely for this reason. While I hope that the issues you mention above plus the cycle of game launching after a massive deadline crunch leading to development teams searching for new jobs (ie less stability), I don't know that it will happen. Why? People buying games. Personally, I tend to buy the top tier of a game if for no other reason than they typically include the game/season pass (or whatever branding they go with) so that I don't have to manage it after the fact, of the games or expansions I bought recently, they've been the highest tier available: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, State of Decay 2, World of Warcraft Battle for Azeroth, Tekken 7, Destiny 2 Forsaken (which I really haven't played. Still in the Osiris area. Eh, oh well), Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division. To me, the fidelity of the graphics and scope of the games (in that most everyone is chasing epic stories now and if it isn't 30+ hours, it is too short) means the price should bump up beyond $60 so while the tiers of games seems like a dirty move, it seems to me that it is so they can sell you $60 worth* of a $100 game instead of you looking at a $100 game and scoffing entirely. So basically, until people purchasing games are willing to accept that a AAA game in 2019 takes more resources to create than a AAA game in 2009, I don't see this ever getting better. * the $60 version is a full game and not 60% of one though so in reality at that price point you're getting way more value.
- toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
  This is simply a marketing line, not reality. EA, Activision, and Rockstar are making record profits, not struggling to meet budgets. The base price of a game as you point out, gets you less than a whole game, for which you need to buy a season pass (sometimes as many as three of them) they have product tie-ins (Pizza rolls, Dew), they have DLC om-disc and off, and a world of microtransactions abusing gambling mechanics, and the disgusting “Live Services” model. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPM
  - jsgo 8y ago
    beyond adding more story or visual add ins, what is a game that can't be completed without DLC? Never played Battlefront 2 (or 1 for that matter) and those tend to be tossed out there so I can't confirm or deny that one. Diablo 3 base game - if you beat that, have you not beat the game? The DLC adds a new act to it, but for all intents and purposes it is an add on to a game.
    - alasdair_ 8y ago
      What sometimes happens is that developers will create a game and then, very close to the end, some portions will be hacksawed out and turned into dlc. If done poorly, this can be very obvious and can ruin the game - the last Deus Ex game seemed to suffer from this.
      - SeanBoocock 8y ago
        This not standard practice. DLC plans will be specified at a high level early in production but will only solidify as the game gets closer to ship. There is a gap, which differs for different disciplines, between finishing work for the shipping build and its actual release. DLC is a great opportunity for the team to continue working at peak production on new content. I've never seen content held back or cut out of a main release explicitly for the purpose of including in DLC. What sometimes happens is that features or half-finished content that the team decided to cut from the game is revisited for DLC. From my perspective as a game developer, modern games are never finished but at some point you have to start shipping things. DLC is an opportunity to explore ideas that would have otherwise been left on the cutting room floor, and provide some stability for large teams as they ramp down from full production.
yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago
>No idea if unions are the solution Is there an alternative? Not only does history bare a great many reasons to be gracious to labor organizing for the world we have today, but it also leaves little reason to imagine there is a choice in the matter.
usefulcat 8y ago
The biggest reason why gamedev jobs tend to have lower pay and more overtime compared to many other swdev jobs is really simple: there are lots of sw devs who are willing to put up with those conditions because they want to work on games. Also, it's easy to claim that one "wants" to unionize on a survey. But that's quite a bit different from actually doing it. So I would take this survey with a large grain of salt. It's not like most game developers couldn't get other sw dev jobs if they wanted to, after all. If you want to know what people really value, ignore what they say and focus on what they actually do. Disclaimer: have worked for game companies before
- sonnyblarney 8y ago
  "But that's quite a bit different from actually doing it." I think if most of them could 'tick a box and join the union' they would - whereas actually establishing a union would be hard, yes. There could be some terrible fallout as well - companies shutting down studios and opening up another one elsewhere etc..
  - xfitm3 8y ago
    Don’t forget the employees have to pay for the union.
    - vkou 8y ago
      Right now, they pay for not having a union, in dollars, stress, their health, divorce, etc.
      - serf 8y ago
        Some do. Others may lead totally balanced lives, with a fair employer, earning good wages -- a union may serve them only detrimentally. It's not as clear-cut as "unions are always good for all workers."
        Frondo 8y ago
megaman8 8y ago
I suppose this could happen to software engineering jobs outside of the gaming industry too once we end up with an equal number of over supplied software engineers.
- ido 8y ago
  once we end up with an equal number of over supplied software engineers. I remember this being said 20 years ago & yet never seems to actually happen (so far).
anonymous5133 8y ago
This has been a big issue in accounting, specifically public accounting. You are basically paid a salary and then you basically become a slave to the firm. You put up with lots of BS because you don't want to get fired or passed up for a promotion. The reason it is like that is because the partners of the firm get a cut of everything you produce...so the more you produce...the more they get. They quickly realize they need to figure out ways to keep you working more and more.

walshemj 8y ago

And I suspect that having sfx and vfx unionised which game dev is closer to might help.

jsgo 8y ago

I didn't go into game development, even though that's why I started to learn programming, precisely for this reason. While I hope that the issues you mention above plus the cycle of game launching after a massive deadline crunch leading to development teams searching for new jobs (ie less stability), I don't know that it will happen. Why? People buying games. Personally, I tend to buy the top tier of a game if for no other reason than they typically include the game/season pass (or whatever branding they go with) so that I don't have to manage it after the fact, of the games or expansions I bought recently, they've been the highest tier available: Assassin's Creed Odyssey, State of Decay 2, World of Warcraft Battle for Azeroth, Tekken 7, Destiny 2 Forsaken (which I really haven't played. Still in the Osiris area. Eh, oh well), Ghost Recon Wildlands, The Division. To me, the fidelity of the graphics and scope of the games (in that most everyone is chasing epic stories now and if it isn't 30+ hours, it is too short) means the price should bump up beyond $60 so while the tiers of games seems like a dirty move, it seems to me that it is so they can sell you $60 worth* of a $100 game instead of you looking at a $100 game and scoffing entirely. So basically, until people purchasing games are willing to accept that a AAA game in 2019 takes more resources to create than a AAA game in 2009, I don't see this ever getting better. * the $60 version is a full game and not 60% of one though so in reality at that price point you're getting way more value.

toufiqbarhamov 8y ago
This is simply a marketing line, not reality. EA, Activision, and Rockstar are making record profits, not struggling to meet budgets. The base price of a game as you point out, gets you less than a whole game, for which you need to buy a season pass (sometimes as many as three of them) they have product tie-ins (Pizza rolls, Dew), they have DLC om-disc and off, and a world of microtransactions abusing gambling mechanics, and the disgusting “Live Services” model. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPM https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=pHSso2vufPM
- jsgo 8y ago
  beyond adding more story or visual add ins, what is a game that can't be completed without DLC? Never played Battlefront 2 (or 1 for that matter) and those tend to be tossed out there so I can't confirm or deny that one. Diablo 3 base game - if you beat that, have you not beat the game? The DLC adds a new act to it, but for all intents and purposes it is an add on to a game.
  - alasdair_ 8y ago
    What sometimes happens is that developers will create a game and then, very close to the end, some portions will be hacksawed out and turned into dlc. If done poorly, this can be very obvious and can ruin the game - the last Deus Ex game seemed to suffer from this.
    - SeanBoocock 8y ago
      This not standard practice. DLC plans will be specified at a high level early in production but will only solidify as the game gets closer to ship. There is a gap, which differs for different disciplines, between finishing work for the shipping build and its actual release. DLC is a great opportunity for the team to continue working at peak production on new content. I've never seen content held back or cut out of a main release explicitly for the purpose of including in DLC. What sometimes happens is that features or half-finished content that the team decided to cut from the game is revisited for DLC. From my perspective as a game developer, modern games are never finished but at some point you have to start shipping things. DLC is an opportunity to explore ideas that would have otherwise been left on the cutting room floor, and provide some stability for large teams as they ramp down from full production.

yyyymmddhhmmss 8y ago

>No idea if unions are the solution Is there an alternative? Not only does history bare a great many reasons to be gracious to labor organizing for the world we have today, but it also leaves little reason to imagine there is a choice in the matter.

usefulcat 8y ago

The biggest reason why gamedev jobs tend to have lower pay and more overtime compared to many other swdev jobs is really simple: there are lots of sw devs who are willing to put up with those conditions because they want to work on games. Also, it's easy to claim that one "wants" to unionize on a survey. But that's quite a bit different from actually doing it. So I would take this survey with a large grain of salt. It's not like most game developers couldn't get other sw dev jobs if they wanted to, after all. If you want to know what people really value, ignore what they say and focus on what they actually do. Disclaimer: have worked for game companies before

sonnyblarney 8y ago
"But that's quite a bit different from actually doing it." I think if most of them could 'tick a box and join the union' they would - whereas actually establishing a union would be hard, yes. There could be some terrible fallout as well - companies shutting down studios and opening up another one elsewhere etc..
- xfitm3 8y ago
  Don’t forget the employees have to pay for the union.
  - vkou 8y ago
    Right now, they pay for not having a union, in dollars, stress, their health, divorce, etc.
    - serf 8y ago
      Some do. Others may lead totally balanced lives, with a fair employer, earning good wages -- a union may serve them only detrimentally. It's not as clear-cut as "unions are always good for all workers."
      - Frondo 8y ago

megaman8 8y ago

I suppose this could happen to software engineering jobs outside of the gaming industry too once we end up with an equal number of over supplied software engineers.

ido 8y ago
once we end up with an equal number of over supplied software engineers. I remember this being said 20 years ago & yet never seems to actually happen (so far).

anonymous5133 8y ago

This has been a big issue in accounting, specifically public accounting. You are basically paid a salary and then you basically become a slave to the firm. You put up with lots of BS because you don't want to get fired or passed up for a promotion. The reason it is like that is because the partners of the firm get a cut of everything you produce...so the more you produce...the more they get. They quickly realize they need to figure out ways to keep you working more and more.