4 ms·

This makes me sad, R* has made some of my most favorite games, especially Red Dead Redemption 2. They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat th

by metadat 11mo ago

This makes me sad, R* has made some of my most favorite games, especially Red Dead Redemption 2. They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? I don't recall reports of Valve (Steam, also super profitable) stooping. Is Rockstar a genetic relative of GAFA, because this is more like what I've come to expect from Amazon.

wahnfrieden 11mo ago
Businesses desire growth, not conservation or charity. And that desire is frequently achieved through illegal means. Wage theft for instance is a far greater sum than the total of robbery in the US. The criminality is rampant! Meta is also in the news today for making 10% of its revenue from scams, as well as for having codified policy that scammers representing at least 0.15% of their revenue must be protected from any moderation. Business thrives on illegality.
- saubeidl 11mo ago
  It's almost as if capitalism was a deeply messed up system that brings out and celebrates the very worst in humanity.
  - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
    You think the administrators of a socialist, communist or other collectivist society would not face the same temptation and respond similarly? At least under liberal capitalism I have the option of not buying games and of making my own.
    - wahnfrieden 11mo ago
      Well you’re onto something re: authority and hierarchy…
  - m0llusk 11mo ago
    Systems need to be managed. If you cook with high temperatures and let your attention wander then the food burns. If you drive fast with bald tires then you may fly off the road. We know that strong regulation on industry, especially monopolies, high taxes on the wealthy, and powerful unions can keep Capitalism in balance, but we have chosen not to use these mechanisms. Is that Capitalism being flawed or is it us as custodians failing in our basic duties?
    - wahnfrieden 11mo ago
      Crony capitalism is capitalism. How do you know it can be kept in balance if it is not?
      - m0llusk 11mo ago
        We've been through this before. As recently as the 1930s the Capitalist economy tried to eat itself and had to be stopped. That is historical and everything changes, but the basic principles are the same. Find out where things are going wrong and address that with some basic controls and limits.
        saubeidl 11mo ago
        If a system leads to catastrophic failure on a regular basis, maybe it's just a bad system? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...
  - _DeadFred_ 11mo ago
    Capitalism is based on/grew out of the Norman feudalism, where lords were foreign conquerors who cared nothing about the locals, local land, local societal norms. They only cared about rent extraction for themselves (todays C suit class) and to pay the nobles above them (the market). They simply removed themselves one step, created corporations to remove all personal liability, and ramped up the profit extraction to a global scale. Just look at the first large scale joint stock company, the East India Company. Could corporatism have had a worse/more evil progenitor?
zaptheimpaler 11mo ago
Because no amount of profit is ever enough for the stock market, everything must perpetually grow.
- fn-mote 11mo ago
  That’s a very reductionist take on what happened here. I don’t think increased profit is likely to result from these firings. How would it?
  - saubeidl 11mo ago
    Profit = revenue - expenses. Firings reduce expenses, the equation above explains the rest. Of course, that's only in the short term, but that's what exec bonuses are given out on!
  - wahnfrieden 11mo ago
    Firings in this case were for union busting. Illegal union busting is profitable - that's why business owners do it. Because it's illegal, they will make up a different excuse for why the workers were fired. They will never admit to illegal union busting. So you should not take their statements as good faith.
  - zaptheimpaler 11mo ago
    It may sound simplistic but its the truth and there are plenty of other examples and history around this - Starbucks recently. 30 employees unionizing may not have any significant impact on their profits, but if they let that union grow it would have a lot more members demanding better working hours or wages over time. A strong union also generally leads to a loss of control by management where they have to negotiate more with workers which they don't like. Why do you think they were fired?
- appreciatorBus 11mo ago
  This is also true if humans in general, at all stations in life, including union members and union leaders. Is there any offer a union would refuse on the grounds that’s too much?
burnt-resistor 11mo ago
> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? That's not how human nature works. Greed doesn't lead to idealism or altruism, it invariably leads to entitlement and more greed. The rich are never satisfied with hundreds of billions, they insist upon trillions.
immibis 11mo ago
People who are nice and treat their employees like human beings are not allowed to become CEOs.
- kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
  This would be less of an issue if game companies operated as co-ops.
  - mlrtime 11mo ago
    Isn't that what indy game developers are, why can't both exist? You don't have to play GTA.
rayiner 11mo ago
[flagged]
- stego-tech 11mo ago
  That’s not a Union thing, that’s a system thing. Anyone fiercely on either extreme of the spectrum is missing the forest for the trees and proudly waving their willful ignorance of the dynamics of power. In an ideal scenario, Unions and Shareholders would cooperate to achieve suitable outcomes for both parties; in reality, the amount of power needed to even get a Union off the ground and keep it sustained against the onslaught of Capital means those who wield said power are inclined to use it often. It’s why the (debatably) smarter gamble has been more workers forming anti-Capital institutions: cooperatives, union-first enterprises, sustainable corporations with stringent, anti-Capital bylaws. By removing Capital’s power early, those who do come to the table are more likely to negotiate in good faith rather than scorched-earth tactics. Don’t slight unions as a whole just because power dynamics in a Capitalist society dictate everything be a zero-sum game. Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.
  - appreciatorBus 11mo ago
    Those power dynamics are part of the human psyche. The will persist and be present under any alternative you care to impose.
    - fhackenberger 11mo ago
      I'd strongly disagree, as there are examples of societies that don't exhibit these traits. See the Kogi from Colombia for example. A necessity environmental condition seems to be that social groups size stays within certain limits (around 120 as I remember).
    - array_key_first 11mo ago
      This is just a belief. A belief that allows you to do anything, and can absolve anyone of any evil. Why stop there? Why have systems or government at all? Why even bother making murder illegal? After all, it's human nature. After all, it's just how life works. After all, the strong win, and the weak get eaten. Everyone knows that.
tbrockman 11mo ago
Valve is a "flat" organization, where your compensation is determined based on peer review. Rockstar, and owner Take-Two (largely owned by institutional investors--well known for their historical championing of workers rights and fondness of unions), both seem to have your typical corporate hierarchies, where executives are fairly and correctly compensated for being more productive than over 200 software engineers combined.
- tkel 11mo ago
  If you think one person can be as productive as 200, you're sniffing glue, my friend. Executives make more money because they are the only ones with the power to set wages. Workers do not have the power to set wages.
  - tbrockman 11mo ago
    Oh, I don't, I was being very sarcastic, but I appreciate that your response was so measured under the assumption that I was serious, haha.
lotsofpulp 11mo ago
>They make so much money Their 10-Ks show they lost a lot of money. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TTWO/take-two-interactive-software/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TTWO/take-two-inte... 2025 $-4.479B 2024 $-3.744B 2023 $-1.125B The meager earnings in years previous to that are beyond wiped out. In fact, expect a lot more squeeze if you work at Take Two or a lot more rent seeking if you are a customer, because based on the stock price movement, the market is expecting a lot more net income. Edit: looks like they set a ton of money on fire by overpaying for Zynga a few years ago. Customers and employees are going to be paying for that bad decision for a long time.
- kg 11mo ago
  It's true that Take Two lost money but it's also true that Rockstar makes them tremendous amounts of money. Lifetime revenues from GTA5 are estimated to be near or exceeding 10 billion USD. Managing to lose money on those kinds of profits is arguably further evidence that leadership there is overpaid.
tick_tock_tick 11mo ago
> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? Because they want to make great games. It's sad but we've never figure out how to replicate the creative output that crunch and stress triggers. I don't understand it and frankly I couldn't stand it so I left the industry but I won't pretend that we have a solution too the problem.
- Draiken 11mo ago
  I call BS. There's a big difference between people putting extra effort due to real external factors (e.g. company running out of money) and artificial pressure while executives enjoy their yachts. This is a myth and plenty of amazing games were made without treating people like trash.
epolanski 11mo ago
> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? Because they can. In the gaming industry the biggest studios get away with running sweat shops because there's endless hordes of brilliant engineers and artists who had always dreamed to make videogames and need a huge name on the CV to move to better places.

by metadat 11mo ago

wahnfrieden 11mo ago

Businesses desire growth, not conservation or charity. And that desire is frequently achieved through illegal means. Wage theft for instance is a far greater sum than the total of robbery in the US. The criminality is rampant! Meta is also in the news today for making 10% of its revenue from scams, as well as for having codified policy that scammers representing at least 0.15% of their revenue must be protected from any moderation. Business thrives on illegality.

saubeidl 11mo ago
It's almost as if capitalism was a deeply messed up system that brings out and celebrates the very worst in humanity.
- appreciatorBus 11mo ago
  You think the administrators of a socialist, communist or other collectivist society would not face the same temptation and respond similarly? At least under liberal capitalism I have the option of not buying games and of making my own.
  - wahnfrieden 11mo ago
    Well you’re onto something re: authority and hierarchy…
- m0llusk 11mo ago
  Systems need to be managed. If you cook with high temperatures and let your attention wander then the food burns. If you drive fast with bald tires then you may fly off the road. We know that strong regulation on industry, especially monopolies, high taxes on the wealthy, and powerful unions can keep Capitalism in balance, but we have chosen not to use these mechanisms. Is that Capitalism being flawed or is it us as custodians failing in our basic duties?
  - wahnfrieden 11mo ago
    Crony capitalism is capitalism. How do you know it can be kept in balance if it is not?
    - m0llusk 11mo ago
      We've been through this before. As recently as the 1930s the Capitalist economy tried to eat itself and had to be stopped. That is historical and everything changes, but the basic principles are the same. Find out where things are going wrong and address that with some basic controls and limits.
      - saubeidl 11mo ago
        If a system leads to catastrophic failure on a regular basis, maybe it's just a bad system? See also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit_to_fall https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tendency_of_the_rate_of_profit...
- _DeadFred_ 11mo ago
  Capitalism is based on/grew out of the Norman feudalism, where lords were foreign conquerors who cared nothing about the locals, local land, local societal norms. They only cared about rent extraction for themselves (todays C suit class) and to pay the nobles above them (the market). They simply removed themselves one step, created corporations to remove all personal liability, and ramped up the profit extraction to a global scale. Just look at the first large scale joint stock company, the East India Company. Could corporatism have had a worse/more evil progenitor?

zaptheimpaler 11mo ago

Because no amount of profit is ever enough for the stock market, everything must perpetually grow.

fn-mote 11mo ago
That’s a very reductionist take on what happened here. I don’t think increased profit is likely to result from these firings. How would it?
- saubeidl 11mo ago
  Profit = revenue - expenses. Firings reduce expenses, the equation above explains the rest. Of course, that's only in the short term, but that's what exec bonuses are given out on!
- wahnfrieden 11mo ago
  Firings in this case were for union busting. Illegal union busting is profitable - that's why business owners do it. Because it's illegal, they will make up a different excuse for why the workers were fired. They will never admit to illegal union busting. So you should not take their statements as good faith.
- zaptheimpaler 11mo ago
  It may sound simplistic but its the truth and there are plenty of other examples and history around this - Starbucks recently. 30 employees unionizing may not have any significant impact on their profits, but if they let that union grow it would have a lot more members demanding better working hours or wages over time. A strong union also generally leads to a loss of control by management where they have to negotiate more with workers which they don't like. Why do you think they were fired?
appreciatorBus 11mo ago
This is also true if humans in general, at all stations in life, including union members and union leaders. Is there any offer a union would refuse on the grounds that’s too much?

burnt-resistor 11mo ago

> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? That's not how human nature works. Greed doesn't lead to idealism or altruism, it invariably leads to entitlement and more greed. The rich are never satisfied with hundreds of billions, they insist upon trillions.

immibis 11mo ago

People who are nice and treat their employees like human beings are not allowed to become CEOs.

kevin_thibedeau 11mo ago
This would be less of an issue if game companies operated as co-ops.
- mlrtime 11mo ago
  Isn't that what indy game developers are, why can't both exist? You don't have to play GTA.

rayiner 11mo ago

[flagged]

stego-tech 11mo ago
That’s not a Union thing, that’s a system thing. Anyone fiercely on either extreme of the spectrum is missing the forest for the trees and proudly waving their willful ignorance of the dynamics of power. In an ideal scenario, Unions and Shareholders would cooperate to achieve suitable outcomes for both parties; in reality, the amount of power needed to even get a Union off the ground and keep it sustained against the onslaught of Capital means those who wield said power are inclined to use it often. It’s why the (debatably) smarter gamble has been more workers forming anti-Capital institutions: cooperatives, union-first enterprises, sustainable corporations with stringent, anti-Capital bylaws. By removing Capital’s power early, those who do come to the table are more likely to negotiate in good faith rather than scorched-earth tactics. Don’t slight unions as a whole just because power dynamics in a Capitalist society dictate everything be a zero-sum game. Instead, focus on building a better game and fairer set of rules, and recognize Unions are part of that.
- appreciatorBus 11mo ago
  Those power dynamics are part of the human psyche. The will persist and be present under any alternative you care to impose.
  - fhackenberger 11mo ago
    I'd strongly disagree, as there are examples of societies that don't exhibit these traits. See the Kogi from Colombia for example. A necessity environmental condition seems to be that social groups size stays within certain limits (around 120 as I remember).
  - array_key_first 11mo ago
    This is just a belief. A belief that allows you to do anything, and can absolve anyone of any evil. Why stop there? Why have systems or government at all? Why even bother making murder illegal? After all, it's human nature. After all, it's just how life works. After all, the strong win, and the weak get eaten. Everyone knows that.

tbrockman 11mo ago

Valve is a "flat" organization, where your compensation is determined based on peer review. Rockstar, and owner Take-Two (largely owned by institutional investors--well known for their historical championing of workers rights and fondness of unions), both seem to have your typical corporate hierarchies, where executives are fairly and correctly compensated for being more productive than over 200 software engineers combined.

tkel 11mo ago
If you think one person can be as productive as 200, you're sniffing glue, my friend. Executives make more money because they are the only ones with the power to set wages. Workers do not have the power to set wages.
- tbrockman 11mo ago
  Oh, I don't, I was being very sarcastic, but I appreciate that your response was so measured under the assumption that I was serious, haha.

lotsofpulp 11mo ago

>They make so much money Their 10-Ks show they lost a lot of money. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TTWO/take-two-interactive-software/net-income https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/TTWO/take-two-inte... 2025 $-4.479B 2024 $-3.744B 2023 $-1.125B The meager earnings in years previous to that are beyond wiped out. In fact, expect a lot more squeeze if you work at Take Two or a lot more rent seeking if you are a customer, because based on the stock price movement, the market is expecting a lot more net income. Edit: looks like they set a ton of money on fire by overpaying for Zynga a few years ago. Customers and employees are going to be paying for that bad decision for a long time.

kg 11mo ago
It's true that Take Two lost money but it's also true that Rockstar makes them tremendous amounts of money. Lifetime revenues from GTA5 are estimated to be near or exceeding 10 billion USD. Managing to lose money on those kinds of profits is arguably further evidence that leadership there is overpaid.

tick_tock_tick 11mo ago

> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? Because they want to make great games. It's sad but we've never figure out how to replicate the creative output that crunch and stress triggers. I don't understand it and frankly I couldn't stand it so I left the industry but I won't pretend that we have a solution too the problem.

Draiken 11mo ago
I call BS. There's a big difference between people putting extra effort due to real external factors (e.g. company running out of money) and artificial pressure while executives enjoy their yachts. This is a myth and plenty of amazing games were made without treating people like trash.

epolanski 11mo ago

> They make so much money, why can't they play nice and treat their employees like human beings? Because they can. In the gaming industry the biggest studios get away with running sweat shops because there's endless hordes of brilliant engineers and artists who had always dreamed to make videogames and need a huge name on the CV to move to better places.