6 ms·

The problem with game dev isn't the entry level jobs. Also a game dev union would probably work more like the film and TV trade/technical unions than SAG. I kn

The problem with game dev isn't the entry level jobs. Also a game dev union would probably work more like the film and TV trade/technical unions than SAG. I know people who work in film doing things from lighting to sound to driving. Their working conditions and pay are much better than they would be without the unions.

jdoliner 8y ago
I don't think lighting, sound and stunt people have the same influx of young starry eyed people coming into the profession though. That's what makes unions really difficult. Same thing applies to academia, which is arguably worse than both game-devs and actors.
- vichu 8y ago
  From a friend, I've heard great things about the treatment they got as part of The Animation Guild, and I imagine that that demographic of artists and creators is quite similar to the "young starry eyed people" going into the game industry. In fact, there's likely a good amount of overlap of artists that have worked in both (supported slightly by anecdata of friends who are 3d artists).
- trentlott 8y ago
  I'm not sure that's true Plenty of starry-eyed people enter academia. There isn't quite the same unionization gateway into academic jobs, but mostly just markers of effective work - papers, grants, etc
manfredo 8y ago
The game development industry would probably start outsourcing even more tasks if unionization takes hold. If relatively cheap roles like QA and art asset production suddenly get more expensive then setting up remote development offices abroad becomes much better from a cost benefit perspective. Unionizing would likely bring better pay to those jobs that still exist, but make it a lot harder to get one of those jobs to begin with.
- Pfhreak 8y ago
  Most studios need leads/experienced developers/artists/audio folk in house. If they are unionized, wouldn't they have leverage over how and when outsourcing was used?
  - manfredo 8y ago
    Maybe. But they're competing against developers that aren't subject to these limitations. Art assets often make up the bulk (50-70%) of the development costs of modern games. If one studio has to pay 3D modelers $50,000 a year and another only has to pay $10,000 a year (not to mention no healthcare, retirement fund, etc) then the former is at a huge disadvantage. Outsourcing isn't a hypothetical. Naughty Dog started outsourcing art asset production to Asia with Uncharted 3. Music recording has been outsourced for at least a decade. Sure, the company hires experienced people (like art directors and composers) in house but the heavy lifting is done offshore.
    - Mirioron 8y ago
      The former Soviet countries probably have a bunch of low cost talent as well.
    - drawbars 8y ago
      The heavy lifting in game music is not outsourced. It’s really only the orchestra musicians that are outsourced. The music direction, supervision, engineering, orchestrating, score prep and copy services, editing, mixing,mastering, integration and testing is still done in-house or by a contracted music service, usually US based. The reason for outsourcing orchestras is ironically to avoid overly strict contracts with AFM, the musicians union. This is why Nashville is bursting with video game scoring sessions. Tennessee is a right-to-work state.
    - pixl97 8y ago
      Guess it's time for a outsource music and art tariff.
- SeanBoocock 8y ago
trimbo 8y ago
> Their working conditions and pay are much better than they would be without the unions. This is true, but those are gig jobs, not full-time jobs. A show might last 8-12 weeks. The crew need the union just to carry over health care and retirement benefits, and it's less about higher pay. In games, the art department might need these kinds of unions, since many of those people are hired on contracts for a game. (Though a lot of art creation has gone overseas already.) I don't really see a union being necessary for engineers or game designers for now, for the same reasons it's not needed at tech companies (engineers are hard to hire/retain).
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  The working conditions are horrible. That's why unions are necessary, and it's been the main driver of unionization over the centuries. Ancillary benefits don't drive unionization nearly as much as core horrible working conditions and bad pay.
  - wutbrodo 8y ago
    The labor movement's utility in improving horrible working conditions was based on the fact that laborers were considered to be coerced into these conditions by the threat of starving to death (or the modern-developed-country equivalent of standard-of-living resource constraints). I don't know much about game development, but aren't the majority of the relevant skills for most roles quite transferable? If the working conditions are miserable enough that unions are necessary, what is keeping people from switching to a similar role in an industry without substandard conditions? Is it the broader problem that these roles aren't well-treated in any industry? (certainly not the case for developers, but that's just one role). These aren't rhetorical questions trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      There is no "similar" role. There's no other industry that is involved in making games. That's why it's the video game industry. That's what they do. If you leave that industry, you're not making games anymore. And that's what people want to do. And before you or anybody else argues, that isn't reason enough for shitty work hours, ridiculous amounts of crunch, complete lack of life balance, etc. to be acceptable. The same way it's not okay to pay teachers or nurses or firefighters so much less just because they might be fulfilling a passion in helping other people. I'm not sure why one should need to leave the industry one wants to work in before one is afforded a job that doesn't guide one directly towards burnout within 5 years. And even if these people leave, there's plenty of young blood who'll gladly work in these conditions because they want to make video games, so nothing changes.

jdoliner 8y ago

I don't think lighting, sound and stunt people have the same influx of young starry eyed people coming into the profession though. That's what makes unions really difficult. Same thing applies to academia, which is arguably worse than both game-devs and actors.

vichu 8y ago
From a friend, I've heard great things about the treatment they got as part of The Animation Guild, and I imagine that that demographic of artists and creators is quite similar to the "young starry eyed people" going into the game industry. In fact, there's likely a good amount of overlap of artists that have worked in both (supported slightly by anecdata of friends who are 3d artists).
trentlott 8y ago
I'm not sure that's true Plenty of starry-eyed people enter academia. There isn't quite the same unionization gateway into academic jobs, but mostly just markers of effective work - papers, grants, etc

manfredo 8y ago

The game development industry would probably start outsourcing even more tasks if unionization takes hold. If relatively cheap roles like QA and art asset production suddenly get more expensive then setting up remote development offices abroad becomes much better from a cost benefit perspective. Unionizing would likely bring better pay to those jobs that still exist, but make it a lot harder to get one of those jobs to begin with.

Pfhreak 8y ago
Most studios need leads/experienced developers/artists/audio folk in house. If they are unionized, wouldn't they have leverage over how and when outsourcing was used?
- manfredo 8y ago
  Maybe. But they're competing against developers that aren't subject to these limitations. Art assets often make up the bulk (50-70%) of the development costs of modern games. If one studio has to pay 3D modelers $50,000 a year and another only has to pay $10,000 a year (not to mention no healthcare, retirement fund, etc) then the former is at a huge disadvantage. Outsourcing isn't a hypothetical. Naughty Dog started outsourcing art asset production to Asia with Uncharted 3. Music recording has been outsourced for at least a decade. Sure, the company hires experienced people (like art directors and composers) in house but the heavy lifting is done offshore.
  - Mirioron 8y ago
    The former Soviet countries probably have a bunch of low cost talent as well.
  - drawbars 8y ago
    The heavy lifting in game music is not outsourced. It’s really only the orchestra musicians that are outsourced. The music direction, supervision, engineering, orchestrating, score prep and copy services, editing, mixing,mastering, integration and testing is still done in-house or by a contracted music service, usually US based. The reason for outsourcing orchestras is ironically to avoid overly strict contracts with AFM, the musicians union. This is why Nashville is bursting with video game scoring sessions. Tennessee is a right-to-work state.
  - pixl97 8y ago
    Guess it's time for a outsource music and art tariff.
SeanBoocock 8y ago

trimbo 8y ago

> Their working conditions and pay are much better than they would be without the unions. This is true, but those are gig jobs, not full-time jobs. A show might last 8-12 weeks. The crew need the union just to carry over health care and retirement benefits, and it's less about higher pay. In games, the art department might need these kinds of unions, since many of those people are hired on contracts for a game. (Though a lot of art creation has gone overseas already.) I don't really see a union being necessary for engineers or game designers for now, for the same reasons it's not needed at tech companies (engineers are hard to hire/retain).

CydeWeys 8y ago
The working conditions are horrible. That's why unions are necessary, and it's been the main driver of unionization over the centuries. Ancillary benefits don't drive unionization nearly as much as core horrible working conditions and bad pay.
- wutbrodo 8y ago
  The labor movement's utility in improving horrible working conditions was based on the fact that laborers were considered to be coerced into these conditions by the threat of starving to death (or the modern-developed-country equivalent of standard-of-living resource constraints). I don't know much about game development, but aren't the majority of the relevant skills for most roles quite transferable? If the working conditions are miserable enough that unions are necessary, what is keeping people from switching to a similar role in an industry without substandard conditions? Is it the broader problem that these roles aren't well-treated in any industry? (certainly not the case for developers, but that's just one role). These aren't rhetorical questions trying to make a point, I'm genuinely curious.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    There is no "similar" role. There's no other industry that is involved in making games. That's why it's the video game industry. That's what they do. If you leave that industry, you're not making games anymore. And that's what people want to do. And before you or anybody else argues, that isn't reason enough for shitty work hours, ridiculous amounts of crunch, complete lack of life balance, etc. to be acceptable. The same way it's not okay to pay teachers or nurses or firefighters so much less just because they might be fulfilling a passion in helping other people. I'm not sure why one should need to leave the industry one wants to work in before one is afforded a job that doesn't guide one directly towards burnout within 5 years. And even if these people leave, there's plenty of young blood who'll gladly work in these conditions because they want to make video games, so nothing changes.