Dreadnought developer lays off third of workforce days after game's release!

Seelinnikoi

Game has just launched on steam and already has very bad reviews, CEO of dev company told the rest of employees that they only could stay afloat for some months, rest of staff was all let go.

RIP the game does not seem to have any more future.

Sad because I played it in beta and it was "ok" to have a little fun on the side...

Sources: 
https://www.gamasutra.com/view/news/328955/Six_Foot_lays_off_nearly_one_third_of_dev_team_following_Dreadnought_Steam_launch.php
https://www.pcgamer.com/dreadnought-developer-lays-off-third-of-workforce-days-after-games-release/
https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2018-10-21-dreadnought-developer-six-foot-lays-off-about-a-third-of-its-staff
https://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2018-10-22-six-foot-lays-off-one-third-of-development-staff

JeffSpicoli

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

anemo

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Seelinnikoi

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

No I dont work for them.

What is happening with the gaming industry is that there are more games coming out, than "free gamers" who are not already "tied up" with a game.
What I mean is, that even though there are a lot of games coming out, the huge majority of gamers are already invested into a game and will not spend or is very hesitant to start a new game... specially since all these stories of games shutting down within a year to 6 months of opening up.

If you go check steam early access, a lot of games shut down this past month, leaving gamers screwed over.

I wont buy a new game for a very, very long time!

Kyleran

Fairly standard practice in software development projects to ramp until release and then downsize afterwards.

Smaller companies normally have to lay off which is one reason I joined a large firm which would be more likely to have new projects I could transition to.

It's worked well for the past 15 years and has been much better than the 3 to 5 year changing of employers earlier in my career.

Still possible to get laid off at my firm, I quickly learned to recognize when it was time to change projects or teams before they hit and to make sure I provided real value and others knew I did.

AlBQuirky

anemo said:

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Wait... So any old "actor" that moves out to Hollywood is guaranteed jobs? I did know this...

[edit]

A little further explanation...

How would a union have prevented this? Could they force the company to stay running? Just curious how a union would "fix" this common problem.

Quizzical

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

delete5230

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Sure, all companies demand full work every hour of every day, once something is invented, they lay off the inventor, unless their is something else that needs to be invented. 

Thank you for your services, here's your check, now theirs the door !

Albatroes

Isn't a third usually like the art people who are contracted most of the time anyway? Its possible they over hired in order to secure development or maybe they dont really plan much updating in the long term. Too many unknown variables.

Superman0X

Quizzical said:

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

I disagree that the issue is too many people who want to be in the industry. I have been in the gaming (related) industry for almost two decades. There is a very high churn in employees, with most leaving this industry (an not just moving to a different company in the same industry).

The issue with the industry is the shortsightedness of capital.  The money coming in is looking for a high return of 20% per year, with a short exit of 2 years. This is basically like borrowing from loansharks. It leads to a scenario where companies are forced to make self destructive choices, in order to pay back the money. 

Why isn't there more reasonable money available you ask? Well, the industry has a high upfront cost, with a long return time, and a high failure rate. Companies that do well become huge, but most companies either just get by, or eventually fail. If you look at the indies that do well, it is because they had financial and developmental discipline (A great example is Grinding Gear Games). However, in todays market, they are usually bought out by one of the larger publishers once they succeed. 

Slapshot1188

Superman0X said:

Quizzical said:

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

I disagree that the issue is too many people who want to be in the industry. I have been in the gaming (related) industry for almost two decades. There is a very high churn in employees, with most leaving this industry (an not just moving to a different company in the same industry).

The issue with the industry is the shortsightedness of capital.  The money coming in is looking for a high return of 20% per year, with a short exit of 2 years. This is basically like borrowing from loansharks. It leads to a scenario where companies are forced to make self destructive choices, in order to pay back the money. 

Why isn't there more reasonable money available you ask? Well, the industry has a high upfront cost, with a long return time, and a high failure rate. Companies that do well become huge, but most companies either just get by, or eventually fail. If you look at the indies that do well, it is because they had financial and developmental discipline (A great example is Grinding Gear Games). However, in todays market, they are usually bought out by one of the larger publishers once they succeed. 

Another contributing factor (which does correlate with Quizzical's point) is that there are simply too many competing games.  The market is absolutely flooded.  If there were fewer games flooding the market then the long return time could be shortened by raising prices and the high failure rate would likely reduce.  You'd still have high upfront costs but it would, in general, be a better environment for success.

MadFrenchie

Slapshot1188 said:

Superman0X said:

Quizzical said:

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

I disagree that the issue is too many people who want to be in the industry. I have been in the gaming (related) industry for almost two decades. There is a very high churn in employees, with most leaving this industry (an not just moving to a different company in the same industry).

The issue with the industry is the shortsightedness of capital.  The money coming in is looking for a high return of 20% per year, with a short exit of 2 years. This is basically like borrowing from loansharks. It leads to a scenario where companies are forced to make self destructive choices, in order to pay back the money. 

Why isn't there more reasonable money available you ask? Well, the industry has a high upfront cost, with a long return time, and a high failure rate. Companies that do well become huge, but most companies either just get by, or eventually fail. If you look at the indies that do well, it is because they had financial and developmental discipline (A great example is Grinding Gear Games). However, in todays market, they are usually bought out by one of the larger publishers once they succeed. 

Another contributing factor (which does correlate with Quizzical's point) is that there are simply too many competing games.  The market is absolutely flooded.  If there were fewer games flooding the market then the long return time could be shortened by raising prices and the high failure rate would likely reduce.  You'd still have high upfront costs but it would, in general, be a better environment for success.

I have mentioned this before as well.  Literally, so many games have been created that many have to give the entire game away for free then try and entice gamers to buy skins and such.

A bunch of mediocre/serviceable games limping along on microtransaction revenue takes cash outta the marketplace and from a premium experience made with a box price in mind.

Tom272

What some of you missed in this story was that the launch on steam came a day after Fractured Space, also a space sim battle game announced they are shutting down the development of the game. 
For me their game is superior to Dreadnought and its more of a space battleship game then dreadnought is. Its sad really, but it just states that the studios need to chase the big trending thing or they are doomed to fail because not enough audience

Iselin

MadFrenchie said:

Slapshot1188 said:

Superman0X said:

Quizzical said:

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

I disagree that the issue is too many people who want to be in the industry. I have been in the gaming (related) industry for almost two decades. There is a very high churn in employees, with most leaving this industry (an not just moving to a different company in the same industry).

The issue with the industry is the shortsightedness of capital.  The money coming in is looking for a high return of 20% per year, with a short exit of 2 years. This is basically like borrowing from loansharks. It leads to a scenario where companies are forced to make self destructive choices, in order to pay back the money. 

Why isn't there more reasonable money available you ask? Well, the industry has a high upfront cost, with a long return time, and a high failure rate. Companies that do well become huge, but most companies either just get by, or eventually fail. If you look at the indies that do well, it is because they had financial and developmental discipline (A great example is Grinding Gear Games). However, in todays market, they are usually bought out by one of the larger publishers once they succeed. 

Another contributing factor (which does correlate with Quizzical's point) is that there are simply too many competing games.  The market is absolutely flooded.  If there were fewer games flooding the market then the long return time could be shortened by raising prices and the high failure rate would likely reduce.  You'd still have high upfront costs but it would, in general, be a better environment for success.

I have mentioned this before as well.  Literally, so many games have been created that many have to give the entire game away for free then try and entice gamers to buy skins and such.

A bunch of mediocre/serviceable games limping along on microtransaction revenue takes cash outta the marketplace and from a premium experience made with a box price in mind.

There's really only a handful of games every year that make a lot of money because they are outstanding in innovation or execution or both. The rest want to make just as much money but with inferior derivative stuff.

It seems to be something common to all entertainment media: movies and TV have never been any different.

Quizzical

Superman0X said:

Quizzical said:

The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers.  If the pay, hours, job stability, and other such factors were the same, many computer programmers would rather code games for a living than do obscure enterprise stuff that they wouldn't care about if it didn't pay well.  Similarly for a lot of other jobs that could be part of creating computer games.  And that's to say nothing of the artists and quest writers whose skills really don't carry over to highly compensated non-gaming applications.

That means that jobs in the game industry are going to end to be in some way worse than other comparable jobs that do less interesting work.  That could mean lower pay, longer hours, less stability, and/or a variety of other undesirable things.

That's not unique to game development.  It's also true of a lot of other entertainment industries.  Actors, musicians, and athletes who aren't among the handful at the top of their profession are likely to also have long hours, low pay, and/or little stability.  For every star athlete getting paid $10 million per year, there are a whole lot of minor leaguers who will get paid more in their next career than they do now.

I disagree that the issue is too many people who want to be in the industry. I have been in the gaming (related) industry for almost two decades. There is a very high churn in employees, with most leaving this industry (an not just moving to a different company in the same industry).

The issue with the industry is the shortsightedness of capital.  The money coming in is looking for a high return of 20% per year, with a short exit of 2 years. This is basically like borrowing from loansharks. It leads to a scenario where companies are forced to make self destructive choices, in order to pay back the money. 

Why isn't there more reasonable money available you ask? Well, the industry has a high upfront cost, with a long return time, and a high failure rate. Companies that do well become huge, but most companies either just get by, or eventually fail. If you look at the indies that do well, it is because they had financial and developmental discipline (A great example is Grinding Gear Games). However, in todays market, they are usually bought out by one of the larger publishers once they succeed. 

And why are they readily able to replace the people who leave?  Because too many people want to work in the industry.

Sure, the reason people leave is that they don't like the hours, the pay, the instability, or whatever.  If all programming jobs gave equal compensation and working conditions, the number of programmers who would want to program games for a living is far higher than the number that the gaming industry needs to hire.  That means that the equilibrium compensation to bring the number actually willing to work there down to what the industry actually needs will tend to be lower than other programming jobs.  That's why the conditions are so much worse than for other, equally skilled jobs programming something else.  And similarly for a lot of other types of work in the game industry.

Octagon7711

AlBQuirky said:

anemo said:

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Wait... So any old "actor" that moves out to Hollywood is guaranteed jobs? I did know this...

[edit]

A little further explanation...

How would a union have prevented this? Could they force the company to stay running? Just curious how a union would "fix" this common problem.

A union could have a company give notice so many months in advance of a proposed layoff or complete shutdown. With a union an employee usually can't be told the week before Christmas that today is their last day with the company, from out of nowhere.

Staff who's been there longer could get priority assignments.  In short unions are usually big on employees rights, better health benefits,  and provides a more stable work environment and work on improving pay scales and inflation related pay increases, and adding improved pension plans.

Sometimes business owners do everything they can to stop a union from forming and there are even companies they can hire who specialize in keeping unions from forming or busting them up.

Scot

"The underlying problem is that too many people want to be game developers."

The bare faced cheek, wanting to be a games developer, back to the work house with you!

---

Seriously, sorry to hear that so many got dropped, does seem a lot even for post launch.

Quizzical

Octagon7711 said:

AlBQuirky said:

anemo said:

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Wait... So any old "actor" that moves out to Hollywood is guaranteed jobs? I did know this...

[edit]

A little further explanation...

How would a union have prevented this? Could they force the company to stay running? Just curious how a union would "fix" this common problem.

A union could have a company give notice so many months in advance of a proposed layoff or complete shutdown. With a union an employee usually can't be told the week before Christmas that today is their last day with the company, from out of nowhere.

Staff who's been there longer could get priority assignments.  In short unions are usually big on employees rights, better health benefits,  and provides a more stable work environment and work on improving pay scales and inflation related pay increases, and adding improved pension plans.

Sometimes business owners do everything they can to stop a union from forming and there are even companies they can hire who specialize in keeping unions from forming or busting them up.

There's no free lunch.  There are trade-offs for everything.

Rules that make it harder or otherwise more expensive to fire employees make businesses far more reluctant to hire them in the first place.  Societies where this is widespread can have persistently high unemployment for decades.

Benefits cost money, too, and generally come out of what would have instead been paid in wages.  Even if you can force a company to pay employees more than they would otherwise, you probably just drive that company out of business as competitors can undercut their prices.  In order to make it possible to pass those costs along to consumers, you have to force the whole industry pay increased employee costs.  Good luck doing that in a global market.

That's not to say that unions are automatically bad.  Maybe in some cases you think the costs of getting this or that are worth paying.  My point is that if you present it as making things unambiguously better for employees without any trade-offs, then you're not seriously considering the situation.

AlBQuirky

Octagon7711 said:

AlBQuirky said:

anemo said:

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Wait... So any old "actor" that moves out to Hollywood is guaranteed jobs? I did know this...

[edit]

A little further explanation...

How would a union have prevented this? Could they force the company to stay running? Just curious how a union would "fix" this common problem.

A union could have a company give notice so many months in advance of a proposed layoff or complete shutdown. With a union an employee usually can't be told the week before Christmas that today is their last day with the company, from out of nowhere.

Staff who's been there longer could get priority assignments.  In short unions are usually big on employees rights, better health benefits,  and provides a more stable work environment and work on improving pay scales and inflation related pay increases, and adding improved pension plans.

Sometimes business owners do everything they can to stop a union from forming and there are even companies they can hire who specialize in keeping unions from forming or busting them up.

Listen, I'm FOR Unions, or at least what they originally did: ending child labor; ending  truly hazardous conditions (rats, exposed hazardous materials, REAL safety); giving employees SOME say. But they don't do these things anymore. They instead DEMAND higher and higher wages (whether the company can afford them or not), ridiculous compensation packages (American auto industry), and basically trying to give the company to the employees. Unions also try to homogenize the country to one way of thinking.

Though this situation is bad, it is a fact of life that immensely stupid people make immensely stupid decisions. It happens eery day. Unions have their uses and originally had a good purpose. Now, they are worse than the industries they try to "fix."

NOBODY has job security. Your idea about "the longest employed" gets security while better workers don't is just wrong. Look at teachers unions. Awful teachers get tenured and CAN'T be removed. Well done unions, well done.

Octagon7711

I think there has to be balance.  Any group with few rights to negotiate or appeal dismissals will be taken advantage.  The question is are game developers being overly exploited by the companies they work for?  Bring up Google and do your own research.

Game developers look to unions to fix the industry’s exploitative workplace culture

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/17156472/game-developers-unionization-exploitative-toxic-workplace-culture-gdc-2018 

Game developers need unions — they can’t afford another Telltale
https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/26/game-developers-need-unions-they-cant-afford-another-telltale/

Unions: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
The bottom line is that unions really are needed; they are a necessary counter to unconstrained capitalism. We should not be trying to eliminate unions. Let’s face the fact that workers have a right to organize, and management has a right to negotiate with them. As business managers, whether in the private or public sector, we also have to stand up to the fact that we agreed to their contracts, so we can’t then complain about them, or rail against those “greedy unions.” But union members and their leadership also have to come to the table with reasonable requests, particularly in trying economic times. Negotiating to a win-win is much more reasonable than assuming it is a zero sum game that must be won at all costs. And physical intimidation and assaults are never a rational negotiating tactic or response to something you don’t agree with.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-masterfano/unions-the-good-the-bad-t_b_3880878.html

Slapshot1188

Octagon7711 said:

I think there has to be balance.  Any group with few rights to negotiate or appeal dismissals will be taken advantage.  The question is are game developers being overly exploited by the companies they work for?  Bring up Google and do your own research.

Game developers look to unions to fix the industry’s exploitative workplace culture

https://www.theverge.com/2018/3/23/17156472/game-developers-unionization-exploitative-toxic-workplace-culture-gdc-2018 

Game developers need unions — they can’t afford another Telltale
https://venturebeat.com/2018/09/26/game-developers-need-unions-they-cant-afford-another-telltale/

Unions: The Good, the Bad, the Ugly
The bottom line is that unions really are needed; they are a necessary counter to unconstrained capitalism. We should not be trying to eliminate unions. Let’s face the fact that workers have a right to organize, and management has a right to negotiate with them. As business managers, whether in the private or public sector, we also have to stand up to the fact that we agreed to their contracts, so we can’t then complain about them, or rail against those “greedy unions.” But union members and their leadership also have to come to the table with reasonable requests, particularly in trying economic times. Negotiating to a win-win is much more reasonable than assuming it is a zero sum game that must be won at all costs. And physical intimidation and assaults are never a rational negotiating tactic or response to something you don’t agree with.
https://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-masterfano/unions-the-good-the-bad-t_b_3880878.html

Huffington Post 

Being a game developer at a certain studio is not some kind of human rights issue.  If a job sucks... leave it.  If you know a company has a shitty reputation... do not join it.  When the company cannot fill jobs then they either raise salaries, treat people better, or go out of business.

There is no chance in hell that I am ever going to give a cut of my salary to some union.

Quizzical

If a company is shutting down, what is the union going to do?  Force them to keep paying employees with money that they don't have?  Severe layoffs are commonly a desperation move to try to avoid going bankrupt and having to lay everyone off, or perhaps to delay the inevitable bankruptcy of the company.  If a union says you can't do that, then they just lay everyone off and shut down.  How is that an improvement?

That game industry employment is so volatile is partially the nature of the industry.  Especially for an indie company, the company may exist to make one particular game.  You need different distributions of skills at various points in a game's development.  Trying to keep a stable workforce throughout all stages of a game's development just isn't practical.

A larger company that has many games in development simultaneously may be able to move people from one project to another when the former no longer requires the employee's skills.  But if that is to be the only business model allowed, do you really want a complete ban on the existence of indie game developers?  I sure don't.

cochs

I agree the problem is not there are too many people wanting to make games.  I've been a dev for 20+ years, 10 years of that in senior roles in the game industry.  Once you narrow down the field to high quality people, say the same level you would find in a tech startup generally, there really aren't too many people looking for work.  Anyone that is actually really good with experience, has multiple offers on the table normally.  It's those that are in less skilled roles or maybe too highly specialized, that have a harder time of it.

The union crap, most of the people advocating for that in tech have no clue.  Whenever you hear someone talking about it in generalist/ideological terms, it almost always means they have no practical experience in the specific context.  Silicon Valley is full of people who you would think would normally support unions.  But they don't.  Because practical experience tends to trump idealism when it's applied to a specific context where it's much easier to see what the specific results of applying it would look like.

AlBQuirky

Octagon7711 said:

I think there has to be balance.  Any group with few rights to negotiate or appeal dismissals will be taken advantage.  The question is are game developers being overly exploited by the companies they work for?

I believe that everyone has the ability to negotiate their terms of employment. If you don't like the terms, you are free to leave and look elsewhere. What Unions do now is give mob mentality to employees. Now a whole slew of people can attempt to FORCE employers to comply with employees wishes, whether it's good for the company or not.

People, especially Americans have this entitlement mentality that is destroying our country. The Government does not pay salaries, businesses do. If they die out because employees took over who knew nothing about how to actually run a business, who gets paid? Who pays taxes?

Let's face it. Businesses are not evil, like many folks want to make them out to be. How many software companies treat5 their employees well? We certainly don't know because that's NOT news.

As I said before, I'm all for unions that actually stood for job improvement. "Job Security" is not it. It is facetious at best, disingenuous at worst. If your job security bankrupts your employer, who is the winner again?

PS: Great source there, The Huffington (No one is more left than us!) Post.

moshra

Octagon7711 said:

AlBQuirky said:

anemo said:

thunderC said:

Well that wasn't very nice  , do you work for them ? You know I'v been reading alot of stories like these lately, this whole video game development thing as a career sounds like very unstable work and a very volatile career path.

  

Just like Hollywood was before it unionized.

Though probably a bit worse now since Dev Studios tend to be in the most expensive cities, with the least new building, a silly antiunion mindset by workers (to such an extent that voice actors negotiating draws attacks from non-leadership), and a worse/greater "replacablity" mind set in employers than old Hollywood had.

Wait... So any old "actor" that moves out to Hollywood is guaranteed jobs? I did know this...

[edit]

A little further explanation...

How would a union have prevented this? Could they force the company to stay running? Just curious how a union would "fix" this common problem.

A union could have a company give notice so many months in advance of a proposed layoff or complete shutdown. With a union an employee usually can't be told the week before Christmas that today is their last day with the company, from out of nowhere.

Staff who's been there longer could get priority assignments.  In short unions are usually big on employees rights, better health benefits,  and provides a more stable work environment and work on improving pay scales and inflation related pay increases, and adding improved pension plans.

Sometimes business owners do everything they can to stop a union from forming and there are even companies they can hire who specialize in keeping unions from forming or busting them up.

A union could spend the majority of your money on bribing politicians... I mean, lobbying.

MadFrenchie

AlBQuirky said:

Octagon7711 said:

I think there has to be balance.  Any group with few rights to negotiate or appeal dismissals will be taken advantage.  The question is are game developers being overly exploited by the companies they work for?

I believe that everyone has the ability to negotiate their terms of employment. If you don't like the terms, you are free to leave and look elsewhere. What Unions do now is give mob mentality to employees. Now a whole slew of people can attempt to FORCE employers to comply with employees wishes, whether it's good for the company or not.

People, especially Americans have this entitlement mentality that is destroying our country. The Government does not pay salaries, businesses do. If they die out because employees took over who knew nothing about how to actually run a business, who gets paid? Who pays taxes?

Let's face it. Businesses are not evil, like many folks want to make them out to be. How many software companies treat5 their employees well? We certainly don't know because that's NOT news.

As I said before, I'm all for unions that actually stood for job improvement. "Job Security" is not it. It is facetious at best, disingenuous at worst. If your job security bankrupts your employer, who is the winner again?

PS: Great source there, The Huffington (No one is more left than us!) Post.

There's something to be said about the strain unions put on businesses, but there's also an inequity of bargaining power in hiring.

For the vast, vast majority of us, we will not be the only qualified candidate for a position.  And you, as an individual, have a helluva lot more to lose by turning down a job offer than an employer has in refusing to offer you a job.  Those who get to truly command power with their employer are folks like LeBron James; an irreplaceable amalgam of talent and expertise.

Even in the case where the pool of qualified applicants is insanely small, businesses can and do terminate employees.  Keeping with the sports example: most of us immediately know the name of the guy when I say there's a Super Bowl-level QB still sitting around without a job erely due to the optics.  There are teams with quarterbacks that aren't even in his league as far as ability, but the franchise still pays the scrub and just loses, instead.

Companies don't always make the right choices regarding employment practices.  See the Air Traffic Controller strike debacle here in America.  The overworking of controllers literally contributed to incidents that killed people (one incident in Europe involved the employer forcing the Controller to work TWO radar scopes simultaneously.  Like, what the actual fuck?)  And guess who had to personally live with that?  Not the company, who merely releases a statement assigning the event to "human error" and fires the Controller.  The Controller who just lost his career has to deal with the personal guilt of causing or contributing to an incident that killed someone.


Employees and employers do not approach the bargaining table on even footing.  Additionally, the self-interest inherent to both sides is necessarily confrontational in some ways.  For every example of an employee just being shitty, we can cite examples of employers exploiting employees.  The difference is that the employee, except for very very specific circumstances, has much more at risk than does the company.  The underlying intent of things like unions was to help alleviate that inequity.