Seems like people who are being fairly compensated in a comfortable work environment will make a better game than people being underpaid and overworked?
I don't think that's necessarily true. The reason wages are low is because the games industry attracts a lot of talent, so companies can get good talent for less. So I don't expect unionizing to help in terms of quality of work produced, but it should improve wages and working conditions.
Quality of a product is not just a result of quality of talent (see: "I hate sand."). Management, direction, and quality of life of the talent has a profound impact. If you want the highest quality product, especially in an industry that requires collaboration, you want your talent to be happy.
Maybe, but I feel like any quality gains would be minimal since people are already passionate about their roles (else why would those roles be so desired?). Then again, the Valve model really works, so it really depends on whether unions can change company culture, or if they'll just secure better working hours and pay. The culture is the problem, and I'm not convinced a union can fix that.
Huh, well fear is a very different thing than stress. Once your stress turns into fear, you're no longer personally invested in the project and are merely concerned about your own survival.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours. This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won't be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Then again, I don't have a lot of details to go on, just that there's allegations of "fear" at Daedelic.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours.
That's called exploitation, plain and simple. It's predatory behavior. They are knowingly under-compensating and over-working people, knowing that they can get away with it because of this passion. Say the same about just about any other industry and it's clear how unacceptable it is. Beyond that, stress, objectively, causes unnecessary illness and death, as proven in decades worth of scientific studies.
This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won't be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Bad management is literally one of the foundational reasons that unions exist in the first place. Management and capital have a significant power imbalance with workers and have, historically and currently, attempted to establish workplace environments and situations that are more exploitative. Collective bargaining is necessary to even the odds and allow for workers to air grievances and get them resolved, without punitive action.
That's called exploitation
I never said it wasn't. My point was just that unionizing isn't necessarily going to improve the end product. It would most likely improve working conditions and employee happiness, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better games. In fact, it could do the opposite since it would be harder to get rid of poor performers.
With or without a union, improving wages and working conditions will improve productivity and the quality of the products being produced. This is an almost universal truth in research on the topic.
Seems like people who are being fairly compensated in a comfortable work environment will make a better game than people being underpaid and overworked?
I don't think that's necessarily true. The reason wages are low is because the games industry attracts a lot of talent, so companies can get good talent for less. So I don't expect unionizing to help in terms of quality of work produced, but it should improve wages and working conditions.
Quality of a product is not just a result of quality of talent (see: "I hate sand."). Management, direction, and quality of life of the talent has a profound impact. If you want the highest quality product, especially in an industry that requires collaboration, you want your talent to be happy.
Maybe, but I feel like any quality gains would be minimal since people are already passionate about their roles (else why would those roles be so desired?). Then again, the Valve model really works, so it really depends on whether unions can change company culture, or if they'll just secure better working hours and pay. The culture is the problem, and I'm not convinced a union can fix that.
Here's an example for you: https://www.ign.com/articles/new-report-makes-disturbing-allegations-against-the-lord-of-the-rings-gollum-developer
Huh, well fear is a very different thing than stress. Once your stress turns into fear, you're no longer personally invested in the project and are merely concerned about your own survival.
The video games industry definitely comes with a lot of stress, but they rely on passion to get value out of those long hours. This sounds like a situation of completely awful management, which won't be fixed with a union (at least not immediately), since a bad manager can make life suck even if you have decent benefits, reasonable work hours, etc.
Then again, I don't have a lot of details to go on, just that there's allegations of "fear" at Daedelic.
That's called exploitation, plain and simple. It's predatory behavior. They are knowingly under-compensating and over-working people, knowing that they can get away with it because of this passion. Say the same about just about any other industry and it's clear how unacceptable it is. Beyond that, stress, objectively, causes unnecessary illness and death, as proven in decades worth of scientific studies.
Bad management is literally one of the foundational reasons that unions exist in the first place. Management and capital have a significant power imbalance with workers and have, historically and currently, attempted to establish workplace environments and situations that are more exploitative. Collective bargaining is necessary to even the odds and allow for workers to air grievances and get them resolved, without punitive action.
I never said it wasn't. My point was just that unionizing isn't necessarily going to improve the end product. It would most likely improve working conditions and employee happiness, but that doesn't necessarily translate into better games. In fact, it could do the opposite since it would be harder to get rid of poor performers.
With or without a union, improving wages and working conditions will improve productivity and the quality of the products being produced. This is an almost universal truth in research on the topic.