Unionization in Gaming - Almost 50% of the Industry Wants It

[karmakid]

https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news...ry_Nearly_50_of_devs_support_unionization.php


Nearly half of game industry professionals think game industry workers should unionize

Unionization is a hot topic in the game industry these days, and nearly half of the game industry professionals surveyed think it’s a good idea. When asked whether they thought game industry workers should unionize, 47 percent said yes. 26 percent said maybe, 16 percent said no, and 11 percent said they didn’t know.

However, when asked whether they think video game workers actually will unionize, only 21 percent said yes. The largest share (39 percent) gave an uncertain “maybe.” 24 percent of respondents said they don’t think it will happen, and 15 percent said that they don’t know.

 

[TeKPhaN]

Yes its needed in most professions.

 

[menace-uk-]

Likely a good thing for the workers...but, not great for gamers IMO.

 

[Kerosene31]

If this happens, it will take a lot longer for games to come out, but it might stop games from being released full of bugs.

I think the crunch is bad for games as much as the workers. I work in IT (non-gaming) and I know that the more you crunch, the more bugs you miss and the more mistakes you make.

I don't think it is a coincidence that as we hear more and more stories of crunch time, games get released in a less polished state.

How many brand new games come out where people find bugs in the first minutes of gameplay?

 

[menace-uk-]

If this happens, it will take a lot longer for games to come out, but it might stop games from being released full of bugs.

I think the crunch is bad for games as much as the workers. I work in IT (non-gaming) and I know that the more you crunch, the more bugs you miss and the more mistakes you make.

I don't think it is a coincidence that as we hear more and more stories of crunch time, games get released in a less polished state.

How many brand new games come out where people find bugs in the first minutes of gameplay?

It wont. All you will get is worse games. We already see games get big delays and still release with numerous bugs. Most games don't get delayed and I would bet that wouldn't change.

Doesn't help that gamers send the wrong message either.

 

[Kerosene31]

It wont. All you will get is worse games. We already see games get big delays and still release with numerous bugs. Most games don't get delayed and I would bet that wouldn't change.

Doesn't help that gamers send the wrong message either.

Games get "delayed" because publishers put forward unrealistic dates. How many games are shown as Q4 2019? How many will make it? That's because some marketing guy says "we ship for the holiday season or else".

I've worked in software development for nearly a quarter century now (non gaming). I see it every day. Management asks the programmers how long something will take to do. Programmers respond with an estimate with some extra built in (for the inevitable issues that nobody can see). Management either just trims them down or keeps asking until they find someone to give them the number they want. Project inevitably gets "delayed", but had they just gone off the initial estimates, it isn't. Every single project I work on turns into "well, the customer needs it by this date" so the estimates go out the window. Project management isn't very hard. There's tons of books out there and with a little training, it can be done very well. The problem is it gets thrown out the window.

No human being can work 12+ hour days coding and not have the end result suffer. There's the concept of diminishing returns. The harder you push people, the mistakes increase. Plus, with the volume of coding being pushed out, you know QA suffers too because they can't keep up either.

To combat this, most places go to agile development now. In agile, you give people a minimum viable product as soon as possible. So, when the release date gets pushed up, you drop features. This is why you see so many games lacking basic, common sense things at day 1.

Trust me, there's no big mystery as to why you see multiple developers making the exact same mistakes over and over.

 

[menace-uk-]

Games get "delayed" because publishers put forward unrealistic dates. How many games are shown as Q4 2019? How many will make it? That's because some marketing guy says "we ship for the holiday season or else".

I've worked in software development for nearly a quarter century now (non gaming). I see it every day. Management asks the programmers how long something will take to do. Programmers respond with an estimate with some extra built in (for the inevitable issues that nobody can see). Management either just trims them down or keeps asking until they find someone to give them the number they want. Project inevitably gets "delayed", but had they just gone off the initial estimates, it isn't. Every single project I work on turns into "well, the customer needs it by this date" so the estimates go out the window. Project management isn't very hard. There's tons of books out there and with a little training, it can be done very well. The problem is it gets thrown out the window.

No human being can work 12+ hour days coding and not have the end result suffer. There's the concept of diminishing returns. The harder you push people, the mistakes increase. Plus, with the volume of coding being pushed out, you know QA suffers too because they can't keep up either.

To combat this, most places go to agile development now. In agile, you give people a minimum viable product as soon as possible. So, when the release date gets pushed up, you drop features. This is why you see so many games lacking basic, common sense things at day 1.

Trust me, there's no big mystery as to why you see multiple developers making the exact same mistakes over and over.

.

Simple fact is delays cost money. Businesses don't want to spend more money...especially when your consumers imply that the game state doesn't matter.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

Games as a service solves most of these problems. We'll be seeing more and more of those games next gen.

 

[Kerosene31]

.

Simple fact is delays cost money. Businesses don't want to spend more money...especially when your consumers imply that the game state doesn't matter.

Well yes but there's more to it than that. Companies want their game on the shelf before the competition. You can bet EA wants Anthem out before Division 2.

This "build it as we go" model is how everyone just operates now though. It isn't just about cost. The idea of spec'ing out a system, planning it, and building it, and shipping a finished product is gone. It goes way beyond costs. Nobody works that way anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

 

[menace-uk-]

Well yes but there's more to it than that. Companies want their game on the shelf before the competition. You can bet EA wants Anthem out before Division 2.

This "build it as we go" model is how everyone just operates now though. It isn't just about cost. The idea of spec'ing out a system, planning it, and building it, and shipping a finished product is gone. It goes way beyond costs. Nobody works that way anymore.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development

Not about money? Yet in your previous comment you ssy they drop even basic features to maintain deadlines with agile dev. Which just bolsters my point.

In the end it all comes back to money. Cutting features to stave of delays.

 

[menace-uk-]

Games as a service solves most of these problems. We'll be seeing more and more of those games next gen.

Nope.

Problem with GaaS is the base game lacks content, and added content is drip fed and ends up fixing nothing. Cases in point, Destiny, SoT, BF5. GaaS is just buzz word for mediocrity.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

Nope.

Problem with GaaS is the base game lacks content, and added content is drip fed and ends up fixing nothing. Cases in point, Destiny, SoT, BF5. GaaS is just buzz word for mediocrity.

Only the bad base games lack content. Just like some bad single player games lack content.

GAAS is becoming more and more competitive. Good luck trying to gain traction if your base game doesn't resonate with gamers.

 

[Kerosene31]

Not about money? Yet in your previous comment you ssy they drop even basic features to maintain deadlines with agile dev. Which just bolsters my point.

In the end it all comes back to money. Cutting features to stave of delays.

Of course it is about money, but you're treating dev costs under the old model. It isn't like the old days where a game comes out and the dev team is either fired or moved to the next project. They mostly stay on to develop DLC. patches, or usually just to finish the game.

The important thing is getting to market first. Delays means no revenue from sales, which is why they are so critical. The dev team is going to be working no matter what, but they want that sales revenue as early in the process as possible. That's why you see half-baked games being the norm.

 

[Kerosene31]

Also remember that Games as a Service is the monetization model, and not every game is going that way, but basically every game is being developed with that in mind anyway.

Basically, GaaS is just agile + pricing model. As an example, Battlefield V is not a GaaS, but basically it is still being developed in chunks anyway, the only difference is how they are (not) charging for content.

I'm just saying that if you don't like this trend, it isn't going away. For people who don't like this, best to wait and not rush out and buy games at launch. So, even though GaaS is not big with games right now, the development method behind it is.

 

[Frozpot]

It wont. All you will get is worse games. We already see games get big delays and still release with numerous bugs. Most games don't get delayed and I would bet that wouldn't change.

Doesn't help that gamers send the wrong message either.

Games would likely cost more as well. Unionization costs a lot of money. It's a tough call, and does not necessarily lead to a better industry or product. It can easily increase cost, and decrease productivity. Then you get into the corruption from Union personnel and how difficult it can become to remove problem employees. It also imperils work/skill incentive as everyone is paid the same regardless of talent or contribution. Not to mention dues and what-not. There is a lot more to it than just wanting better conditions for employees.

The best way to go if you want a collective bargaining agreement is to keep it local for each studio instead of a singular large industry Union. Those things are usually corrupt. We actually kicked our large Union to the curb because it became abundantly clear that our sites' voice was only relevant if they deemed it so and they would use our money and presence to push for things we didn't want.

It was messy,and they used some really ethically questionable tactics, but we made a more specific bargaining association that is better for us AND the company/companies we work for. It's also completely site-specific, so the actual, specific needs of the employees are met. And guess what? We were treated far better during negotiations than the Big Union who was so far up their own ass...

 

[The Living Tribunal]

Games as a service solves most of these problems. We'll be seeing more and more of those games next gen.

As much as I want to disagree with you....I think you are right in this regard.

 

[menace-uk-]

Of course it is about money, but you're treating dev costs under the old model. It isn't like the old days where a game comes out and the dev team is either fired or moved to the next project. They mostly stay on to develop DLC. patches, or usually just to finish the game.

The important thing is getting to market first. Delays means no revenue from sales, which is why they are so critical. The dev team is going to be working no matter what, but they want that sales revenue as early in the process as possible. That's why you see half-baked games being the norm.

I'm treating cost as cost. The dev model is irrelevant to my point.

 

[menace-uk-]

Also remember that Games as a Service is the monetization model, and not every game is going that way, but basically every game is being developed with that in mind anyway.

Basically, GaaS is just agile + pricing model. As an example, Battlefield V is not a GaaS, but basically it is still being developed in chunks anyway, the only difference is how they are (not) charging for content.

I'm just saying that if you don't like this trend, it isn't going away. For people who don't like this, best to wait and not rush out and buy games at launch. So, even though GaaS is not big with games right now, the development method behind it is.

This isn't even correct. BF5 is a GaaS game. It is doing the same thing as SoT, which is a GaaS game aswel. div 2 is a gaas game also. Both also share the 'lacking content' issue too. Both drip feeding minimal content. Both monotizing too--BF5 will start soon.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

As much as I want to disagree with you....I think you are right in this regard.

I think it's much healthier as a medium.

It's so much better for creativity and innovation as well. The old model required 3+ years and a massive budget so publishers were very risk averse.

Now teams can test the waters with smaller scale efforts and see if gamers bite without wasting too much time and money. If they bite, ramp up production. If not, no big deal. Look at how unnatractive Anthem is looking now. No way EA greenlight's that project if they saw what it was going to turn into 4 years ago.

The next 10 years are going to see massive progress in this industry.

 

[Kerosene31]

This isn't even correct. BF5 is a GaaS game. It is doing the same thing as SoT, which is a GaaS game aswel. div 2 is a gaas game also. Both also share the 'lacking content' issue too. Both drip feeding minimal content. Both monotizing too--BF5 will start soon.

That's not correct. GaaS is specifically defined by revenue. That's my point though, games are released like this anyway, the revenue model is only part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service

 

[OneBadMutha]

Games would likely cost more as well. Unionization costs a lot of money. It's a tough call, and does not necessarily lead to a better industry or product. It can easily increase cost, and decrease productivity. Then you get into the corruption from Union personnel and how difficult it can become to remove problem employees. It also imperils work/skill incentive as everyone is paid the same regardless of talent or contribution. Not to mention dues and what-not. There is a lot more to it than just wanting better conditions for employees.

The best way to go if you want a collective bargaining agreement is to keep it local for each studio instead of a singular large industry Union. Those things are usually corrupt. We actually kicked our large Union to the curb because it became abundantly clear that our sites' voice was only relevant if they deemed it so and they would use our money and presence to push for things we didn't want.

It was messy,and they used some really ethically questionable tactics, but we made a more specific bargaining association that is better for us AND the company/companies we work for. It's also completely site-specific, so the actual, specific needs of the employees are met. And guess what? We were treated far better during negotiations than the Big Union who was so far up their own ass...

Sadly I have to agree. To me it goes beyond cost to consumers. Yes cost to consumers would go up but I could justify that if everyone was playing by the same rules, it was fair, consistent, didn’t lead to major inefficiency and there wasn’t so much built-in waste due to corruption, buracracy and politics.

I think unions have had their place at points in time but as they get executed today, they won’t work in the tech industry where a lot of your employees are contractors, flexibility and versatility is valued over specialization and you can’t measure the value of the average individual employee with stats. There’s also no standardization in business model or work conditions. From country to country, it’s different.

I think the best way to improve quality of life for these employees is for the industry to become more mobile. If an employee no longer has to be local because they can do their job remotely, it empowers them and creates flexibility.

 

[menace-uk-]

That's not correct. GaaS is specifically defined by revenue. That's my point though, games are released like this anyway, the revenue model is only part of it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Games_as_a_service

All that article does is define BF5 as GaaS.

 

[menace-uk-]

I think it's much healthier as a medium.

It's so much better for creativity and innovation as well. The old model required 3+ years and a massive budget so publishers were very risk averse.

Now teams can test the waters with smaller scale efforts and see if gamers bite without wasting too much time and money. If they bite, ramp up production. If not, no big deal. Look at how unnatractive Anthem is looking now. No way EA greenlight's that project if they saw what it was going to turn into 4 years ago.

The next 10 years are going to see massive progress in this industry.

Yay! Now we have to pay to beta test games. Woot! This will make gamers rejoice!

 

[The Sunset Limited]

Yay! Now we have to pay to beta test games. Woot! This will make gamers rejoice!

No one's forcing us to do anything. These companies still have to compete for our attention.

 

[menace-uk-]

No one's forcing us to do anything. These companies still have to compete for our attention.

What with? Beta test our game and in 4 years when it is complete we will give you a few hundy MT currency that will buy you nothing.

GaaS is trash. Just like MTs, it will make gaming worse.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

What with? Beta test our game and in 4 years when it is complete we will give you a few hundy MT currency that will buy you nothing.

GaaS is trash. Just like MTs, it will make gaming worse.

You're only viewing it in the most pessimistic and negative terms. At least recognize all the benefits the model provides gamers.

Here's what you're missing.

Games have to be good to attract gamers. They had to be good in 1988. They had to be good in 2008. They'll have to be good in 2028.

No one will play the bad GAAS games because there's so much competition out there.

Or to look at it another way, the industry isn't about to dive in headfirst to the GAAS model if the costs outweighed the benefits.

Just trust us on this one. I tend to be right a lot.

 

[menace-uk-]

You're only viewing it in the most pessimistic and negative terms.

Here's what you're missing.

Games have to be good to attract gamers. They had to be good in 1988. They had to be good in 2008. They'll have to be good in 2028.

No one will play the bad GAAS games because there's so much competition out there.

Or to look at it another way, the industry isn't about to dive in headfirst to the GAAS model if the costs outweighed the benefits.

Just trust us on this one. I tend to be right a lot.

Costs will never outweigh benefits lnnce GaaS gegs in full swing. The model gives them license to do whatever they want.

 

[The Sunset Limited]

Costs will never outweigh benefits lnnce GaaS gegs in full swing. The model gives them license to do whatever they want.

The model doesn't force you to buy or play anything.

 

[Kerosene31]

All that article does is define BF5 as GaaS.

Not really. Technically there are no micrtransactions in BF V (yet of course). Even when they charge for cosmetics, that's not really GaaS. That model is actually something new and we'll see if that works. I fear it won't because buying skins isn't going to support content development. Just because you don't like the amount of content in the game doesn't make it GaaS. They aren't going to be adding all that much from the sound of it.

A perfect example of GaaS is Rainbow Six Siege. They have seasons, and you have to buy content each season. Every season has a new map and usually 2 operators. It costs you money to stay current, often $30-40 a season. In BF V, we'll never have to spend another dime.

 

[menace-uk-]

Not really. Technically there are no micrtransactions in BF V (yet of course). Even when they charge for cosmetics, that's not really GaaS. That model is actually something new and we'll see if that works. I fear it won't because buying skins isn't going to support content development. Just because you don't like the amount of content in the game doesn't make it GaaS. They aren't going to be adding all that much from the sound of it.

A perfect example of GaaS is Rainbow Six Siege. They have seasons, and you have to buy content each season. Every season has a new map and usually 2 operators. It costs you money to stay current, often $30-40 a season. In BF V, we'll never have to spend another dime.

Clearly didn't read your own link.