4 ms·

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 lea

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.

why_only_15 8y ago
The thing is that if you fire a teacher, they must find another job _as a teacher_ because they have no other skills because it isn't transferrable. As a game dev, programming is programming and if you can program a game you can program other things. You won't starve or even have a serious problem if you get laid off and need to change fields.
- jacobush 8y ago
  But most involved in game making are not programmers.
- ido 8y ago
  Programmers are not the only employees in game companies, nor even the majority or biggest plurality (the latter are probably graphic artists). Programmers are indeed the ones in the best position & probably why they are generally the best paid segment.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  I already addressed this. Why are we okay with an entire industry having shitty work conditions, regardless of circumstances? Why should a game developer have to work 80-100 hour weeks for months on end just because he wants to make games? The issue of skills transference is just distracting from this issue.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    > The issue of skills transference The issue of skill transferance is that nobody is forcing them to work in such companies; it means they can leave and try to find another job.
    - jplayer01 8y ago
      That's what they do after a few years, but I'm not sure how that excuses it.
- CydeWeys 8y ago
  I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that these people don't want to work in other industries, they want to make games. And thus it makes sense for them to organize and try to improve the industry they want to be in rather than having to flee to another industry, which currently happens all too often after severe burnout. If it's so bad that many people are being forced out, then clearly it meets the bar of unionization being helpful. I'd rather start organizing than quit the industry I love, as the worst that could happen is I get fired (and potentially get a big payout on a subsequent lawsuit), and if it's so bad that the alternative is to leave anyway, it's the same result.
wutbrodo 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. I hate to be so blunt, but this doesn't make any sense. The context of my comment's reference to "similar" roles is obviously one's with transferable skills (which is why _literally the previous sentence_ was a question about the transferability of skills). > 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. I was nowhere near saying or going to say this. But the claim in the GP that unions are _necessary_ because of horrible working conditions applies to coercive, no-other-options (subject to a reasonable floor) situations like the aforementioned resource constraint. These conditions were "voluntary" to the extent that they were chosen over starving, so there really wasn't much of a floor om how bad they could get. By contrast, in this case, the floor is "these conditions are being chosen over working in a field that isn't your ideal passion". It's a much taller order and a much different conversation to say that it's a human right to be employed in exactly the field you feel like being employed in, particularly with the additional constraint of high wages (mentioned in the GP comment). The alternative, of course, is that the resource constraint is applicable, and that these people are only choosing the horrible job for lack of other options. This isn't a claim that horrible working conditions are okay due to people's intrinsic motivation balancing it out, but it is a rebuttal to the attempt to apply the "unions are necessary and always have been for horrible working conditions" argument to the situation. I don't know what it is about labor issues that makes some people so hysterical that they lose all ability at reading comprehension and pattern-match to their closest hobbyhorse rant. Go soapbox about irrelevant things somewhere else, adults are trying to talk.
- jplayer01 8y ago
  This was unnecessarily hostile and I'm sure is breaking HN rules of conduct if I'm not wrong. If you want to have a discussion, we can have a discussion, but if you're going to insult people and put them down for not sharing your views, maybe you should go back to Reddit.
  - baud147258 8y ago
    Wow. Your bar for being insulted is _very_ low.

why_only_15 8y ago

The thing is that if you fire a teacher, they must find another job _as a teacher_ because they have no other skills because it isn't transferrable. As a game dev, programming is programming and if you can program a game you can program other things. You won't starve or even have a serious problem if you get laid off and need to change fields.

jacobush 8y ago
But most involved in game making are not programmers.
ido 8y ago
Programmers are not the only employees in game companies, nor even the majority or biggest plurality (the latter are probably graphic artists). Programmers are indeed the ones in the best position & probably why they are generally the best paid segment.
jplayer01 8y ago
I already addressed this. Why are we okay with an entire industry having shitty work conditions, regardless of circumstances? Why should a game developer have to work 80-100 hour weeks for months on end just because he wants to make games? The issue of skills transference is just distracting from this issue.
- baud147258 8y ago
  > The issue of skills transference The issue of skill transferance is that nobody is forcing them to work in such companies; it means they can leave and try to find another job.
  - jplayer01 8y ago
    That's what they do after a few years, but I'm not sure how that excuses it.
CydeWeys 8y ago
I don't understand why it's so hard to understand that these people don't want to work in other industries, they want to make games. And thus it makes sense for them to organize and try to improve the industry they want to be in rather than having to flee to another industry, which currently happens all too often after severe burnout. If it's so bad that many people are being forced out, then clearly it meets the bar of unionization being helpful. I'd rather start organizing than quit the industry I love, as the worst that could happen is I get fired (and potentially get a big payout on a subsequent lawsuit), and if it's so bad that the alternative is to leave anyway, it's the same result.

wutbrodo 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. I hate to be so blunt, but this doesn't make any sense. The context of my comment's reference to "similar" roles is obviously one's with transferable skills (which is why _literally the previous sentence_ was a question about the transferability of skills). > 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. I was nowhere near saying or going to say this. But the claim in the GP that unions are _necessary_ because of horrible working conditions applies to coercive, no-other-options (subject to a reasonable floor) situations like the aforementioned resource constraint. These conditions were "voluntary" to the extent that they were chosen over starving, so there really wasn't much of a floor om how bad they could get. By contrast, in this case, the floor is "these conditions are being chosen over working in a field that isn't your ideal passion". It's a much taller order and a much different conversation to say that it's a human right to be employed in exactly the field you feel like being employed in, particularly with the additional constraint of high wages (mentioned in the GP comment). The alternative, of course, is that the resource constraint is applicable, and that these people are only choosing the horrible job for lack of other options. This isn't a claim that horrible working conditions are okay due to people's intrinsic motivation balancing it out, but it is a rebuttal to the attempt to apply the "unions are necessary and always have been for horrible working conditions" argument to the situation. I don't know what it is about labor issues that makes some people so hysterical that they lose all ability at reading comprehension and pattern-match to their closest hobbyhorse rant. Go soapbox about irrelevant things somewhere else, adults are trying to talk.

jplayer01 8y ago
This was unnecessarily hostile and I'm sure is breaking HN rules of conduct if I'm not wrong. If you want to have a discussion, we can have a discussion, but if you're going to insult people and put them down for not sharing your views, maybe you should go back to Reddit.
- baud147258 8y ago
  Wow. Your bar for being insulted is _very_ low.