4 ms·

Game developers' experiencing the misery of crunch time and layoffs is something I've heard about firsthand since the early 2000s at the latest. Reading account

Game developers' experiencing the misery of crunch time and layoffs is something I've heard about firsthand since the early 2000s at the latest. Reading accounts from earlier games' development cycles suggests that this has been common for even longer than that. Game development has always had cyclical labor demands and tight deadlines. I think you need to qualify the claim that these experiences are worsening. In fact, from most of the veteran developers I've talked to report the opposite: before the proliferation of the internet crunch time was way more serious since patching was not a viable option. Nowadays it's pretty much the norm that games have significant bugs for the first week or two and still need to mature after release. This creates greater room for error and less pressure to fix every bug before release.

Apocryphon 7y ago
That's fair, perhaps conditions haven't been substantially worse than in previous console generations. But it sounds like there's something driving the push towards unionizing/organizing, whatever it is. And it sounds like the general public is more aware it being a brutal industry.
- manfredo 7y ago
  Just because you're seeing more news stories about unionization or organizing, doesn't actually mean that there's more interest in unionizing and organizing. It just means that people producing news are writing more stories covering unionization and organizing. Take this story for example. Linkedin lists Glitch's size as 11-50. The highest employee count I've found claims 120. This is small fish in a very large pond. This press release name drops Google, but these companies are three orders of magnitude apart in terms of size.
  - Apocryphon 7y ago
    Prior to this, and at Kickstarter, there were no high-profile tech unions. Now there is at least two. Now you might not consider that substantially more, but that's still definitely more.
    - manfredo 7y ago
      There still aren't any high profile tech unions. Glitch is 120 people with the highest estimates. Kickstarter is 258 as of March 2020 [1]. These are small companies - medium at best. By comparison there are over a million software developers in the US [2]. And that's just one of many "tech" jobs ("Computer Systems Analyst" has another 600k, "Computer Programmer has 250k). Even if we assume that every employee at these companies work in tech roles, these companies represent less than 0.02% of the tech workforce. 1. https://craft.co/kickstarter https://craft.co/kickstarter 2. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
      - Apocryphon 7y ago
        Right, but the fact that there's any movement in the industry at all, stories generating discussions such as this one, groups like the Tech Workers Coalition gaining attention, etc., can mean there's some trend shifting. Unless you think the news is selectively focusing on stories to cover and this is all media manufactured. And when change occurs, whether a social trend, or new product type, or whatever- the pioneers tend to be smaller examples rather than high-profile, no?
        manfredo 7y ago
        > Right, but the fact that there's any movement in the industry at all, stories generating discussions such as this one, groups like the Tech Workers Coalition gaining attention, etc., can mean there's some trend shifting. Unless you think the news is selectively focusing on stories to cover and this is all media manufactured. Again, don't conflate discussion and attention with actual change. People who produce the news always have to select their topics, so saying that the news is selectively focusing on something is a tautology. The real question is why people are selecting these topics - and you'd have to direct that question to media producers. The reality is that approval of unions is not outside of historic trends. The last 10 years has seen a marked increase, but that increase started from historic lows. The current approval rating is not abnormally high [1]. > And when change occurs, whether a social trend, or new product type, or whatever- the pioneers tend to be smaller examples rather than high-profile, no? In the case of unionization no, not at all. Early unionization efforts were not only industry-wide but society-wide (except for the exclusion of blacks and immigrants). Groups like the Knights of Labor and American Federation of Labor sought to organize all American workers. Big changes in society are usually made by big groups. The reality is that the fact that 350 workers unionizing in a field of millions has near zero effect. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste...
- pandaman 7y ago
  Despite the popular belief, game developers are pretty well paid. Not every indie or QA contractor, of course, but it's a rich industry with 6 figure salaries and profit sharing/royalty bonuses in successful studios. So, of course, any union would love to represent game developers for a share of their income. Likewise, you don't often hear of, say, restaurant workers needing union representation because they do not make much money and rarely interest unions. This is what's driving calls for unionization IMHO. And I agree with manfredo, I started in the industry in 90s, and crunch was already there. If anything, the situation improved in mid 00s, with CA strengthening exempt employees classification and later 00s with ea_spouse lawsuit. E.g. mandatory crunches are gone, it used to be that people were forced to stay late and come in on weekends even if they had nothing to do but good luck pulling this now. Nowadays people mostly crunch either because their bonus comes out of the game's sales (and/or metacritic score, like in EA) or because they are paid OT.
  - einpoklum 7y ago
    > So, of course, any union would love to represent game developers for a share of their income You're talking about the large, collaborationist unions we know in the US - e.g. those in the AFL-CIO - where "the union" is an external entity to "the unionizing workers"; and often with the bureaucratic motivations you describe. I specifically mentioned that's not the kind of unionization I advise. Also, payment is just one of many issues in a workplace. The basic need for a union is that the company's owners have the mechanisms for thinking, discussing, deciding acting collectively and concertedly, but its employees do not. That's what a union should be. On that basis, employees may want to tackle issues like: * Treatment by managers/management * Workplace culture * Physical working conditions * Workforce size vs. "squeezing" of existing employees * Advancement opportunities within the company/organization * Professional standards and so on. Finally, remember that a gaming development house has a lot of employees other than developers per se: QA, art, production, administrative etc. > Nowadays people mostly crunch ... or because they are paid OT. If people make a good salary, they don't work overtime because they don't need to. There must be some kind of psychological pressure in that direction. Overwork should be avoided. - who have joint interests and may wish to discuss things, take decisions, and act collect

Apocryphon 7y ago

That's fair, perhaps conditions haven't been substantially worse than in previous console generations. But it sounds like there's something driving the push towards unionizing/organizing, whatever it is. And it sounds like the general public is more aware it being a brutal industry.

manfredo 7y ago
Just because you're seeing more news stories about unionization or organizing, doesn't actually mean that there's more interest in unionizing and organizing. It just means that people producing news are writing more stories covering unionization and organizing. Take this story for example. Linkedin lists Glitch's size as 11-50. The highest employee count I've found claims 120. This is small fish in a very large pond. This press release name drops Google, but these companies are three orders of magnitude apart in terms of size.
- Apocryphon 7y ago
  Prior to this, and at Kickstarter, there were no high-profile tech unions. Now there is at least two. Now you might not consider that substantially more, but that's still definitely more.
  - manfredo 7y ago
    There still aren't any high profile tech unions. Glitch is 120 people with the highest estimates. Kickstarter is 258 as of March 2020 [1]. These are small companies - medium at best. By comparison there are over a million software developers in the US [2]. And that's just one of many "tech" jobs ("Computer Systems Analyst" has another 600k, "Computer Programmer has 250k). Even if we assume that every employee at these companies work in tech roles, these companies represent less than 0.02% of the tech workforce. 1. https://craft.co/kickstarter https://craft.co/kickstarter 2. https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/software-developers.htm https://www.bls.gov/ooh/computer-and-information-technology/...
    - Apocryphon 7y ago
      Right, but the fact that there's any movement in the industry at all, stories generating discussions such as this one, groups like the Tech Workers Coalition gaining attention, etc., can mean there's some trend shifting. Unless you think the news is selectively focusing on stories to cover and this is all media manufactured. And when change occurs, whether a social trend, or new product type, or whatever- the pioneers tend to be smaller examples rather than high-profile, no?
      - manfredo 7y ago
        > Right, but the fact that there's any movement in the industry at all, stories generating discussions such as this one, groups like the Tech Workers Coalition gaining attention, etc., can mean there's some trend shifting. Unless you think the news is selectively focusing on stories to cover and this is all media manufactured. Again, don't conflate discussion and attention with actual change. People who produce the news always have to select their topics, so saying that the news is selectively focusing on something is a tautology. The real question is why people are selecting these topics - and you'd have to direct that question to media producers. The reality is that approval of unions is not outside of historic trends. The last 10 years has seen a marked increase, but that increase started from historic lows. The current approval rating is not abnormally high [1]. > And when change occurs, whether a social trend, or new product type, or whatever- the pioneers tend to be smaller examples rather than high-profile, no? In the case of unionization no, not at all. Early unionization efforts were not only industry-wide but society-wide (except for the exclusion of blacks and immigrants). Groups like the Knights of Labor and American Federation of Labor sought to organize all American workers. Big changes in society are usually made by big groups. The reality is that the fact that 350 workers unionizing in a field of millions has near zero effect. 1. https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-steady-year-high.aspx https://news.gallup.com/poll/241679/labor-union-approval-ste...
pandaman 7y ago
Despite the popular belief, game developers are pretty well paid. Not every indie or QA contractor, of course, but it's a rich industry with 6 figure salaries and profit sharing/royalty bonuses in successful studios. So, of course, any union would love to represent game developers for a share of their income. Likewise, you don't often hear of, say, restaurant workers needing union representation because they do not make much money and rarely interest unions. This is what's driving calls for unionization IMHO. And I agree with manfredo, I started in the industry in 90s, and crunch was already there. If anything, the situation improved in mid 00s, with CA strengthening exempt employees classification and later 00s with ea_spouse lawsuit. E.g. mandatory crunches are gone, it used to be that people were forced to stay late and come in on weekends even if they had nothing to do but good luck pulling this now. Nowadays people mostly crunch either because their bonus comes out of the game's sales (and/or metacritic score, like in EA) or because they are paid OT.
- einpoklum 7y ago
  > So, of course, any union would love to represent game developers for a share of their income You're talking about the large, collaborationist unions we know in the US - e.g. those in the AFL-CIO - where "the union" is an external entity to "the unionizing workers"; and often with the bureaucratic motivations you describe. I specifically mentioned that's not the kind of unionization I advise. Also, payment is just one of many issues in a workplace. The basic need for a union is that the company's owners have the mechanisms for thinking, discussing, deciding acting collectively and concertedly, but its employees do not. That's what a union should be. On that basis, employees may want to tackle issues like: * Treatment by managers/management * Workplace culture * Physical working conditions * Workforce size vs. "squeezing" of existing employees * Advancement opportunities within the company/organization * Professional standards and so on. Finally, remember that a gaming development house has a lot of employees other than developers per se: QA, art, production, administrative etc. > Nowadays people mostly crunch ... or because they are paid OT. If people make a good salary, they don't work overtime because they don't need to. There must be some kind of psychological pressure in that direction. Overwork should be avoided. - who have joint interests and may wish to discuss things, take decisions, and act collect