Who cares? A union doesn't stop the fact that high budget games just kinda suck. Layoffs happen because these games bomb over and over and over and money runs out.
a union doesn't guarantee money, that's true. However, a union can guarantee acceptable hours worked - for example, limit overtime (without pay) to X hrs per week.
Or, they ensures you're credited regardless if you left before the game shipped (because it is a form of portfolio for your career).
And lastly, a union means you cannot be exploited hard, like a lot of wanabe game programmers and artists are wont to be.
> If the schedule was right you wouldn't need crazy long hours.
Unless you're making the next GTA6 for which the customer is willing to wait forever, if you increase the schedule so that everyone works fewer hours, then you'll get outcompeted in the free market by game devs from China, Korea and Japan where long hours are not an issue and can get games much quicker to market on lower budgets, putting you out of business.
Games aren't manufacturing. Studios can try, but no one is going to make Elder Scrolls VI feel like ES6 except Bethesda's team, design, and tech. Especially when people doubt Bethesda can do it themselves. Silksong is not something you can outsource to China. Even decent competition can't quite nail that feel people have about The Sims.
Games also aren't zero sum either. Turns out consumers can buy more than 1 game a year.
Unfortunately, most of those games you named are labours of love, and do not bring as much revenue per dollar spent as shitty mobile gambling slot machine games.
And those are what's available as work these days, but has increasingly been outsourced to cheaper locations. Good riddence, but it also means lost jobs.
The original Bethesda staff that worked on your favorite franchises doesn't work there anymore, they all retired or moved on to greener pastures and the studio, just like EA, Ubisoft, etc is full of clueless underpaid and overworked juniors that don't have the skills or eye for detail the original staff had. Here the Chinese and Koreans will eat you alive.
>Games also aren't zero sum either.
No, but the hours in a days is a zero sum. People have the same free time after school/work to play games, this doesn't grow with the market. So they have to carefully pick what games they'll spend their time and money on. And if it's between some Western slop or an Asian game that's better and cheaper, they'll pick the latter. The more competitive the gaming market is by international players, the more western game studios will be squeezed out.
Humans are humans. I'm betting the workers in Asia doing 80+ hours are equally as weary as the ones in the West. What's the burnout rate? It's expensive to replace a developer halfway through development as it takes forever to get up to speed on both the codebase and the game design.
>I'm betting the workers in Asia doing 80+ hours are equally as weary as the ones in the West.
Of course, but workers in the west also have strong economy and a lot of other better choice than working in a sweatshop. Workers in Asia do not , that's why all offshoring goes there.
They are starting to outcompete Hollywood on quality (see Godzilla minus one, Squid Game, Parasite, etc), they just don't have the hundred millions of dollars of marketing budget that Hollywood has to push and advertise their movies in foreign cinemas across the world, nor do Americans have a huge appetite of watching movies with subtitles, nor could they read even if they wanted to ("54% of adults have a literacy below sixth-grade level"[1]).
You're focusing on a fact of the market which is not relevant to unionization discussions - what you're presenting is a risk for everyone in the industry. Instead unionization focuses on doing what we can to ensure we're treated with common decency and respect where we do work.
Your statement isn't false but it isn't the norm. Unionized employees have much higher retention rates and that comes with better skill growth within an organization which generally leads to a more competitive entity. The modern market driven employment process causes massive long term inefficiencies while optimizing for short term valuation which can increase debt accessibility but generally lowers long term value. I think this is a wider discussion however and it'd be better to focus any examination of unions on the employee outcomes who are effectively the consumers of union.
Whether a company prospers or fails the employees working for that company will, in nearly all circumstances, have much better quality of employment while that company lasts. I'd argue that long term company health is supported by unionization but I understand that there is a massive entrenched cultural rejection of that notion.
> I'd argue that long term company health is supported by unionization
This is too black and white. Unionization creates another power structure in a company, one that isn't particularly aligned with company health, but can be. It just depends on the people involved and how they use that power.
> but I understand that there is a massive entrenched cultural rejection of that notion.
I've no idea what you mean by a cultural rejection - which culture are you talking about?
>It just depends on the people involved and how they use that power.
this is basically a tautology so it's a useless statement. Water for a human can bring them back to life, drown them, or tear their body apart. of course context, intent, and factors matter.
But in general, unions are good for a traditional company health: happy workers -> more productivity -> better products. Us being in this turmoil where we aren't fousing on better products doesn't change that.
You've dismissed what I said and then immediately fell victim to it. I don't think you can assume unions create happier workers, nor that happier workers create better products. Unions can also just make comfortable jobsworths. There is no guarantee of anything there.
This is one of those things that's hard to spot from an un-unionised standpoint. You have hard-working, driven workers who sometimes suffer unfairnesses that a union would solve. So unions look good, because your workers are hard-working and driven, and it's all upside.
A decade of unionisation might look very different. For example, the UK in the 1970s briefly moved to a 3 day working week[0] because of coal miner strikes that meant there wasn't enough power in the country. Not all examples are this extreme, partly because we learned from that experience, it's worth thinking of things more objectively, outside of the current context, and analysing the pros and cons of both positions.
> I've no idea what you mean by a cultural rejection - which culture are you talking about?
Eh, I grew up in the states and unions were heavily demonized there. I tend to couch my words quite defensively due to that - my apologies.
> This is too black and white. Unionization creates another power structure in a company, one that isn't particularly aligned with company health, but can be. It just depends on the people involved and how they use that power.
I agree that this isn't a guarantee, there are both bad unions and some good unions that do ill for what they perceive to be good reasons - however, generally speaking, increasing job security and tamping down on companies' instinct to turn to layoffs will usually benefit companies. My experience in the workforce is that larger companies use layoffs as a frequent tool for stock price manipulation when they're having a bad quarter to appear "lean" - and while the markets do respond positively to that it generally comes at the expense of long term company health.
This is definitely a case where both unions and companies can be in the wrong - but it seems that companies are much more often in the wrong. Long tenured employees are quite valuable and layoffs should be a tool used in the extremes to account for overgrowth and shouldn't be happening multiple times in the same decade unless a company is in severely poor health.
Insomniac faced job cuts just 4 months after releasing Spider-Man 2, a game that sold 11 million units and had a score of 97% on Opencritic at release. Epic Games also laid off staff last year. They made a game you may have heard of called 'Fortnite'. It's been rather successful.
But then so has most of the industry, which has experienced growth year-on-year.
A profit does not prevent layoffs and no individual can 10X themselves to safety. There is a huge power and incentive disparity between the people with the power to initiate layoffs and the people who get laid off. There's a way to shrink the gap, but it means accepting you have more in common with your colleagues than your shareholders, then communicating it collectively.
>They made a game you may have heard of called 'Fortnite'. It's been rather successful.
ehh, I give it a week /s
But yes, i'm surprised people still fall into this notion that the last 3 years of layoffs falls into anything close to a just world. it's been clear that these tech cuts are not merit based for a while.
This is a common phenomenon, but I forget what it's called. Everyone thinks the golden age of whatever was when they grew up with it and it's never been quite the same ever since. Doesn't make it true though.
It's not that. Some of my favourite games of all time have been made in the last few years. Japanese devs, eastern European devs, Nordic devs don't seem to have any issues making absolute bangers. Meanwhile, the most recent one in my list from an American developer is... Skyrim. Over a decade old.
Almost half of the games on that list launched after 2010, 6 of those being after 2020. Not sure what qualifies a "modern game", but after 2010 would probably be where I personally draw the line.
The most recent game on that list is from 2023, maybe it just takes time before a game end up on that list? Baldurs Gate 3 was beyond mainstream popular at one point, and surely will end up that list sooner or later, but maybe it's still too early?
This is the turning point where the industry began to change from selling products to selling services. Expansion packs existed before then, but they were sold as complete experiences, essentially mini-sequels sold at a discount because they reused the same engine. The horse armor was something different and controversial at the time.
I wouldn't call a 16 year old game particularly modern.
I would probably say the OP was commenting more on Western gaming, as that's the pattern (see UbiSoft's consecutive string of failures, for example). Games like Elden Ring, Animal Crossing, and Cyberpunk came out of popular non-Western gaming.
The only Western games in that list for the last 6 years are Call of Duty games and Hogwarts Legacy, which was good, although from what I remember vilified by Western media for helping enrich JK Rowling.
Think about what you're saying - the majority of those games are at least 16 years old.
That itself is fairly damning but what puts it over the top is that there are wayyyy more gamers nowadays than there were 16 years ago.
Modern AAA stuff is just simply pretty bad. Games made on a conveyor belt just don't work, at least beyond a point - and that point, wherever it may be, is well behind us for just about all AAA studios.
Yes... almost like 16 years ago is when game sales weren't depending on how long games were on shelves. Shocking that Minecraft can still sell today because it's been on a digial storefront for almost 20 years.
>Modern AAA stuff is just simply pretty bad
1. your conclusion doesnt match your premise. what does sales have to do with quality?
2. this whole argument is just a useless tangent. If you want to look for games not on a conveyor belt, don't look at best selling lists. Especially for networked games continually updated for decades vs. hand crafted releases
There's obviously many more long tail games, but with few exceptions games, even long tailed, tend to be heavily front loaded. The list, in terms of games from e.g. 2018-2023 will likely look identical, so far as the games included, in a decade.
The reason the reflects on AAA games is because AAA in modern times is much more about budget than depth or quality. AAA games are dumping massive amounts of money on titles with the hope of a quick turn-around, but sales for these games are increasingly meh, because the games are increasingly meh.
Even the same studios do a poor job of rehashing stuff.
There are currently something like 10x as many players playing Skyrim as Starfield. It's quite pathetic.
We should probably define what 'AAA' means, because Capcom has been hitting it out of the park pretty consistently as of late. The REmakes, Monster Hunter World and sequels, Devil May Cry 5,...
First off, video game sales are notoriously opaque, and one always has to take numbers like this with a grain of salt. (I particularly doubt the number for The Oregon Trail here, and the citation for it is extremely weak).
But also, note that many of the games--especially the ones near the top--also double- and triple-count their numbers by doing rereleases and special editions and whatnot that all get to count for the "same" game.
Next, note that already 10% of the list came out since the COVID-19 pandemic started--is that not modern enough for you?
Finally, several of these games are continually being worked on and receiving content updates. Minecraft and The Sims 4 may be over a decade old, but they both received updates within the past several months, and their players fully expect more updates in the next several months. Does that mean they aren't modern?
And I see a handful of games released since 2020 on that list.
It also only deals with games that are sold. Whereas games like Genshin Impact have a massive worldwide audience and yet aren't going to show up on that list.
Games don't have the same effect as movies where everyone sees them within a month of release.
It's hard for a game released in the past year to make it onto a top ten list full of games like GTA5 that have been consistently selling copies for over a decade.
and it doesnt make you any more right. i remember in 2007 i noticed that movies sucked… i was a teenager. and i was right because every industry has its ebbs and flows. if you just measure the metrics of cultural impact, halo is a high water mark. people dont even play single player games or watch movies anymore. now the big cultural impact is happening on tiktok and things like that. things are not the same regardless of how much you want to believe that
>i remember in 2007 i noticed that movies sucked… i was a teenager. and i was right
You had an opinion, it was neiter right nor wrong. I was a teenager and watched Juno, 300, Bay's Transformers, And Pirates of the Carribean 3. I thought it was a renaissance. It's all based on personal experience.
> things are not the same regardless of how much you want to believe that
Just from the 2020s, Hogwarts Legacy, Animal Crossing New Horizons, and Valorant. I think you're overweighting the impact of Halo 3 - note that its sales numbers put it nowhere close to the list of best-selling games you linked below.
go out onto the sidewalk in your city. ask a hundred people what they think about balders gate 3 and then ask them what they think of halo… doing so might break your mind open to the truth
I didn't go out and ask random people, but as far as sales figures go from what I find Baldur's Gate 3 has sold more copies than Halo 3 has. Of course it's not a fair comparison since Halo 3 was released in 2007 and only on a single platform, but I would imagine if I went around and asked a random group of people they'd likely be far more familiar with Baldur's Gate 3.
Halo 3 seems to also be very popular only in the U.S., while Baldur's Gate 3 is more recognized internationally.
Only if they are in your age group though. People older wouldn't know Halo, and Fortnite is far more popular than halo ever was both overall and with the youth.
that's highly opportunistic so what's your goal here? Some people can say Baldur's Gate 3 from less than 2 years ago. Others, Eldin Ring from 3 years. Some may even go more niche and suggest games like Undertale or Hollow Knight or go more artsy and suggest Orba Dinn. It's as subjecive as art.
Closest I can get to an objective answer would be Fortnite (since you aren't really specifying the kind of cultral impact). and that's "only" 7 years old or so.
It set the standard for online matchmaking, had exceptional (if not revolutionary) AI for an FPS, phenomenal level design, and is a definite competitor for the best game soundtrack ever. It is probably Bungie's magnum opus.
So it makes perfect sense that contemporary AAA devs would have no idea it even existed.
I'd argue Halo 2 set the standard for online matchmaking. I don't think younger people understand just how popular xbox live/halo 2 were in that era. Probably how us olders underestimate just how popular stuff like Fortnite is today.
I'd second this. The "advanced AI" was pioneered with Halo 2's Behavior Trees. I'd not give very high props to level design to any of the 3, partly because I so easily remember all the re-used assets and geometry and moving areas, but also because Halo was responsible for what I see as a decline in overall FPS design. From reload mechanics to limited ability to carry weapons, to the level design itself that went from more abstract and branching level design to long corridors with too much linearity. There's more creativity in things like the Metroid Prime series, just because of the need for backtracking and new areas when you get new gear. (Of course the Half-Life series also contributed, though interestingly few FPS games have tried to imitate the physics puzzles.) Later on Gears of War and other cover shooters took that to its own sort of perfection. There's good level design in all these, but it's good in their contexts, not exactly phenomenal or standout especially just looking at the FPS genre. (The multiplayer Halo maps are of course pretty good, but again while it's probably just a difference in taste, I think of them as overall steps down from what was going on in Quake/Unreal and their derivatives.)
I guess I'm mostly just amused by the initial comment suggesting Halo 3 of all games as a super incredible cultural impact game. I just can't see it like that at all -- at the time it was just a capstone to what Halo 1 and 2 set up. And in modern times, Halo is so irrelevant that it's probably going to be on Sony's console.
I don't dispute it had massive hype at the time. I wasn't even an xbox fanboy but I still played it with friends who had the system. I still think its long-term cultural impact is rather minimal, the biggest influences of the series on gaming as a whole came from Halo 1 and 2. And as a sibling comment notes, Call of Duty Modern Warfare released only a few months later and was similarly massive, but unlike Halo, CoD has kept up its appeal and impact over the years, from MW2 and on. (Even newer Halo games ape CoD more than their own roots.) Most gamers haven't played Halo, though hopefully most would recognize its title. In comparison, Minecraft (which came later), has such broader name recognition as well as more people who have actually played it, and continues to have strong and popular cultural impact to this day. It didn't have a flashy launch, though, sure.
Perhaps I'm just missing your argument. Is your argument mostly about the immediate "pop" surrounding the launch, rather than any sort of longer term cultural impact? If so, then sure, I'll grant Halo 3 had one of and perhaps even the largest launch hype of all time from the physical release age. Still it's not like Halo 2 wasn't hugely popular at its launch too, though 3 was probably bigger. And of course the already mentioned Modern Warfare had a big launch, though by MW2 the whole culture of launch hype with midnight releases and camping out and so on was just about dead thanks to digital distribution and such. You had other games later on with crazy marketing too -- how are super bowl ads relevant? Dante's Inferno (2010) is a game I've never played but it also had a super bowl ad I've never seen until now. I'd dare say its impact is far less than Halo's, both at its launch (seems to be a God of War clone) and since.
But if you really are arguing that nothing has had a bigger long-term cultural impact since, the single counterexample of Minecraft is enough to stand against that. Speaking of God of War, there's another franchise that has probably by now out-shined the Halo series for cultural impact. (And maybe worth arguing that it probably contributed to Halo 4's dumb "Press button to beat the Didact" QTE?) I'd even put 2011's Dark Souls higher for birthing a new subgenre term, the "Soulslike", even if it took until Elden Ring for FromSoft themselves to hit the pinnacles of financial success and launch success with the formula. And so many other games.
>MW2 the whole culture of launch hype with midnight releases and camping out and so on was just about dead thanks to digital distribution and such
Not quite. MW2 was the largest video game launch on record by pre-orders, revenue and units sold when it was released. Its release broke nearly all of Halo 3's release records. There was no digital release at launch. It also had a massive advertising campaign. There were large ads in every store with an electronics or games sections to an extent that I haven't seen since.
How about we make sure the workers aren't abused and then talk about improving the quality of the games? There are a few decent studios who still make unsatisfactory release
>Layoffs happen because these games bomb over and over and over and money runs out.
Not these days. How many layoffs have EA/Activision done now? 4 waves each?. Sony's been doing well but still laying off all the NA studios.
