Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

Does the game industry need a Crash investigation team?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by Arowx, Sep 23, 2018.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Except here's the thing about overwork and crunch: it invariably leads to higher stress and lower productivity. It ruins lives. It has literal actual health risks associated with it. Those startups you talk about? Most of them already fail because they're notoriously unstable.

    Why do you think there's no merit based systems that involve unions? Again, people in IATSE work at all sorts of pay scales in all sorts of productions. What there is is a reasonable minimum and worker protection.

    This has literally nothing to do with hindsight. Again, a person was hired, relocated, and fired when the company was two weeks from bankruptcy. This is not poor planning, this is a complete lack of communication from higher up, which unions solve. If they accounted for the fact they were literally not making enough money to function then the only difference is that they would have closed sooner and people wouldn't be royally F***ed when it happened.

    Uh, you already do?????????
     
  2. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    That's highly debatable. I tend to go with the point of view that I read somewhere John Carmack saying, that long work hours, at a certain point, are a case of diminishing returns, but it's certainly not a net negative until you really get extreme. So you might work less productively after a certain point, but you still get a certain amount done.

    No doubt the union decides what the merit is, rather than the company itself. But what about:
    • The willingness to work unregulated working hours;
    • The willingness to take a chance at a very high profit for very low remuneration at the start (e.g. shares);
    • The willingness to work for a company that cannot afford the kind of benefits that, let's say, a working parent might need for the sake of their family.
    • The willingness to put up with a lot of employment risk for some kind of reward.
    There are a lot of gray areas, such as whether a small company should be able to hire someone without the possibility of them going on parental leave - which can potentially destroy them competitively and financially, and things like that.

    'A' person? I though they fired 200 without benefits, or something like that? Seems like the problem went a bit deeper than that.

    That's kind of the point.
     
  3. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    When a thread becomes a long series of quotations, each being a retort to a specific part of somebodies post, I quit reading.

    I can't be the only one.
     
  4. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    So what?

    If your small ambitious company is created by exploiting workers, it shouldn't exist. You are asking other people to sacrifice for your dream.

    Encouraging businesses to chase financial stability isn't a bad thing. Too often we fall into the trap of putting the rights of small business owners ahead of the rights of employees. If your small business isn't viable, you shouldn't expect other people to wear that cost.
     
  5. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Crunch is bad management. Period. And it's not just game development that feels this issue. This is literally why we have the 40 hour work week. Unions fought long and hard to get that in to place because overwork is bad in any job and game development is already high stress enough that people are burning out of the industry left and right. This isn't "highly debatable" as we've been seeing its effects for years.

    These aren't "grey areas," they're exploitative business models that drive the value of labour into the ground. If you can't afford to pay your workers a living wage, you shouldn't be in business.

    Yes, and, AGAIN, one of those people was relocated literally two weeks before the entire company announced they were folding.
     
    angrypenguin and Kiwasi like this.
  6. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    A clear, voluntary contract is not exploitation.
     
  7. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    Well actually, it could be. If the state of the industry is so bad that people need to take on unpaid internships to even get considered for a job opening, that's exploitation.

    I'm not making this up. It happens. It's wrong.
     
  8. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    I never read about a successful silicon valley startup with that kind of perspective.

    Not for you to choose.

    I'm not about to start making analyses of a company based on tidbits of information. You could be right. It might have been an separate case of mismanagement, or a mistake of some kind. Who knows.

    Anyway, I've said pretty much all I wanted to say. I think people should choose what they will accept, rather than trying to have others protect them from bad choices. And there should be regulation of contracts, and not much else. I think we're in the realm of political discussion, so I'm out.
     
  9. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    That's because most university courses are worthless. It has nothing to do with exploitative companies.
     
  10. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    I disagree. If the company can take on the risk of employing someone, then they should at least PAY the intern for the internship!
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  11. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Working for free is exploitative. It drives the value of labour down and makes it so people can assume that compensation isn't guaranteed for work they do for others.
     
  12. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Actually it is. The power balance in the employer-employee relationship skews very heavily towards the employer. Which means that without some other form of protection, the employee typically has no choice but to sign and exploitative contract.

    Unions work to redress that power balance by giving employees the ability to withhold their labor. You can also redress that power balance with legislation. Legislation can also redress the balance, although legislation usually only happens as a result of powerful labor unions.

    That's another story. Unregulated and exploitative educational institutions are just as much an issue as unregulated and exploitative companies.
     
  13. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    It might not be "net negative" if you're mindlessly laser focused on the job being done. It's not just productivity that drops, though. People crunching pay personal costs elsewhere. If you take into account your fitness, your mental health, your diet, sleep, relationships, and all of the stuff that human beings like to do outside of work then it becomes net negative pretty quickly!
     
  14. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    There's another part to this argument as well. I myself am a business owner and as of next year I want to expand and become a bigger, more stable, robust company. While doing that I want to reward my employees with renumeration they deserve and I also want to project them and their jobs responsibly as well.

    The trouble I'm going to run into being a business owner that wants to do this is that all my competition aren't bound by those morals. This will makes it even harder for employers that want to do the right thing to compete. Hence where unions or some fairness can actually be good for everyone because it doesn't only reward the employees that get exploited it also provides an even playing-field for employers that want to do the right thing.
     
  15. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    Here in Australia they have 'Graduate Development Programs', which in other words are 'University Graduate Rehabilitation Programs'. You work for a year or two at a reduced pay rate while they teach you what you should already have known, and then you have to work another year. Probably the best thing under the circumstances, but not a solution.

    That's the extreme, so how about just enforcing the national minimum wage?

    That's debatable.

    But that's a risk that any company has to factor in financially. Which makes it very hard to start a new one. Perhaps you think it's a good thing (and in some ways it is) but it also has downsides.

    Fair enough, although I don't think it's separate at all.
     
  16. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    That's for everyone to decide for themselves.
     
  17. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Fun fact: the national minimum wage is so low that it doesn't cover cost of living anywhere.

    At all.

    In the entire continent of North America.

    Even in the cheap places. Hell, even $15 an hour won't cover it.The minimum wage is so bad that, again, we need unions to help with mass contract negotiations just so people can make rent.
     
  18. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    Billy has stated he's Australian, The minumum wage in Australia is actually pretty good in comparison to almost everywhere else.
     
  19. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    Baloney. I lived five years on minimum wage. I lived quite well actually.

    People growing up in 1st world cities just have a seriously skewed sense of... everything.


    Rules of good living are simple. Make dumb choices, you suffer. Act like a fool, get taken advantage of. You get what you deserve. That's all there is to it.
     
  20. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    I thought you stopped reading?

    The cost of living is vastly different everywhere, even within the same state or country. I presume everyone already knows this, but it's worth noting that wages have to be relative to location to some extent.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  21. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Uh, I grew up in a place with a population of 1,149. I currently live somewhere with a population of just over 100,000. The last place I lived was populated by 1,766 people. You're the outlier here.
     
  22. Kiwasi

    Kiwasi

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2013
    Posts:
    16,860
    Unpaid internships also bring in other issues. For a company, it means you are restricting your candidate pool to those already wealthy. A three month unpaid internship means you can only take on people who can afford to pay rent and eat for those three months without being paid. It will eliminate large portions of the talent pool.

    'Tragedy of the commons' is still alive and well today. As long as one individual or group is willing to act in their own self interest, everybody who wants to be 'ethical' gets screwed over.

    Wait, you are arguing against unions from within Australia? Unions have been a major force here for a long time. All of that legislation we have about paid leave, working hours, minimum wage, parental leave, superannuation ect... That's all stuff that been put forward and fought for by the unions.

    You can bet the moment union pressure comes off, that all gets unwound again.
     
    bobisgod234 and angrypenguin like this.
  23. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    How does this make it hard to start a business? It doesn't. Anyone can do that.

    I agree that it makes it hard to grow a business, bringing employees on board, but - as a business owner myself, facing exactly the challenges @Antony-Blackett mentions - I think that's exactly as it should be. A business should not get bring people on board unless it's reasonably able to look after those people mutually beneficially.
     
  24. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    That's bad, here in Australia it's $17/hour. Which covers an individual's living expenses at least.

    I have some things to say about this topic, particularly about how much responsibility a company should have for providing someone with a particular standard of living, but it's a very complex thing and I don't think it's a good place to have a detailed discussion. Long story short, I think that things like contract enforcement and minimum wage (possibly) should be used to ensure that real exploitation doesn't take place, and the rest of people's lives they should take responsibility for.

    It's been a good thread though.
     
  25. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778

    It's already unwinding, look at all the companies in Australia in the last couple years that have got in trouble for not paying minimum wages, for paying under the table and exploiting workers, for not paying superannuation which is required by law.

    And it's only going to get worse with the 'gig-economy' which is in large part a way for businesses to wipe their hands of any responsibility for their workers.
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  26. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,959
    Minimum wage in the US is $7.25. While it's definitely possible to live off of that (low income housing, food stamps, etc) I wouldn't declare it as "quite well" unless you were comparing it to the living conditions of a poor country but then just about everything qualifies at that point.
     
  27. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    No, it isn't. Not at all.

    If your team is in trouble and crunch is the way out, you don't want to be the one not crunching and making things even worse for everyone else. It might make getting your next job harder ("So why don't you have a reference from your last position?"), particularly in areas with close knit industry. You probably have to give notice, so there's a really awkward time between when you announce that you're out and when you actually get to leave.
     
  28. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    Obviously no one starts a business without some idea of how to grow it.

    Nothing happens in isolation though. You can regulate how employees are hired and treated by a company, but you then find that you have to regulate individual freedom, the market itself, and take all sorts of desperate and unwieldy measures against international competition, for example. It's like trying to regulate against climate change.

    I'm not absolutely sure what level of protection is necessary for workers, and I'm not saying that industries should be completely de-regulated. But my first question is always, what can each worker do (and what are they not currently doing) to improve their individual situation.
     
  29. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    And as long as there's no protection against being kicked out on your ass at a moments notice when say... you decide to start a family... I can't think of anything worse.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  30. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    If you're relying on food stamps then you're arguably not living off the minimum wage alone - you're using government subsidy.

    Which, in turn, means that the government is paying for a business' ability to under-pay their workers. Pretty lame!

    Honestly, if the business can afford to pay people properly then they should do so. If they can't afford it then they shouldn't be in business, and the government shouldn't be giving out food stamps to enable nonviable businesses to limp along.

    Edit: I'm not suggesting that food stamps should stop, because that would make things worse for the wrong people. But if minimum wage makes food stamps a necessity then minimum wage needs to change, along with whatever else needs to happen in support of that. This should come down on the business owners, not the workers.
     
    neoshaman, Kiwasi and Ryiah like this.
  31. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    Join a union!
     
    neoshaman, Kiwasi and bobisgod234 like this.
  32. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    I don't think that's "obvious" at all. I'm pretty sure people start businesses without business plans pretty commonly.
     
    Ryiah and Antony-Blackett like this.
  33. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    If only there was a non-regulatory way to do things... some sort of group of workers fighting to make sure they're fairly compensated...

    a... worker... group...
     
    neoshaman, Kiwasi and bobisgod234 like this.
  34. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    That's harsh. But what if your company cannot survive without you?

    Yes but the ones who would succeed, would be managed by people who would be smart enough to not even start under those circumstances.
     
  35. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Oh, right, it's called a LABOUR UNION.
     
  36. Billy4184

    Billy4184

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2014
    Posts:
    6,008
    I'm not sure if I'm not being clear, but I meant 'individual' as in 'not part of a group'.

    It's fun talking with you guys, but I really need to work. See ya around!
     
  37. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Unless that individual is literally the only person who can do that job, this is always a group issue.
     
    angrypenguin likes this.
  38. angrypenguin

    angrypenguin

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2011
    Posts:
    15,614
    We can't discount the ones who don't succeed, because they can still take a bunch of people along for a ride. We also should consider the ones who do "succeed" but who perhaps shouldn't. See the discussion about minimum wage and food stamps...
     
  39. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    So now we're at a consensus. How do we start a union anyway?
     
  40. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    Get into contact with anyone who's been laid off in the past 12 months in the games industry and talk to them about organising. There's certainly enough of them.
     
  41. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    That sounds like effort. I was hoping there was a google form or something.
     
  42. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    If it was easy we'd already *have* tech unions. :p
     
    Kiwasi likes this.
  43. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    Maybe Unity can start a new product.

    Unionity.
     
  44. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181

    This is what I am talking about. People in first world countries are so spoiled they cannot even fathom what ordinary life is like.

    First off, living conditions in poor countries is not the hell you imagine. Except in the case of war or famine, conditions in many poor countries are perfectly suited to human happiness and well being.

    But "poor" countries are not the base line to compare against. You want to know the base line to compare against, watch any wildlife documentary. That's base line. That's the real world. Most people will laugh this off as crazy talk, but what is crazy is that civilization makes up less than 1% of human existence. It's not normal. Okay? This is not anywhere close to normal. The human species living in civilization is like a drug addict. The only time they feel right is when they are high, and they are high so much that they've forgotten what actual normal is.

    And I didn't live off any government programs during that time. I just didn't have any expenses. Literally zero expenses. I lived in a house I built on land that I owned, I ate rice and beans and hunted meat (and mooched off my neighbors from time to time, hehe). That was all by design. I chose to live that way.

    Just as people choose to live in cities. And drive cars. And use cell phones. And use running water. And buy new clothes all the damn time. And waste and pollute and act like the most unthinkable thing you can do is reduce the amount of crap you consume.
     
  45. Antony-Blackett

    Antony-Blackett

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,778
    Owning land means you're pretty much in the top 10% of humans.
     
    neoshaman, Kiwasi and angrypenguin like this.
  46. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    • People born in cities are often locked into living in them because they're stuck in a financial situation that doesn't allow for mobility
    • Cars are often required to get a job and car sales have been declining for people under 30 years old for years now
    • Cell phones are also often required for work because they're the only communication option you might have outside of a home phone
    • Access to clean running water is literally considered a human right
    • Most people under 30 aren't buying clothes all the time either
    You have a very strange set of opinions here.
     
  47. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    Well, if everything is all F***ed up, you got to think outside the box. Sitting around griping won't get you anywhere.

    All those points you made -- not true. I have never had a cell phone in my adult life (well I did for a little while but I didn't use it), clean running water is a luxury you better appreciate (I hauled water by the gallon, which helps one appreciate the source of life), cars are only a necessity if you plan poorly. I lived for years with only a bike.

    About being stuck in cities, I dunno. I suppose if you are born with the S*** end of the stick and don't get a decent education and have lousy parents, yeah what can you do?
     
  48. Ryiah

    Ryiah

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Posts:
    20,959
    Likewise I think people see first world countries as sunshine and rainbows and can't fathom there being any problems.

    You can't simply choose to live in a different part of the country. There are costs associated with it beyond simply getting to the location and they're not all monetary either.
     
  49. BIGTIMEMASTER

    BIGTIMEMASTER

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2017
    Posts:
    5,181
    I bought the land for $1,500, which I worked for by packing moose for a hunting outfit. If you don't know anything about that, it means carrying 150lbs of meat through the alaska bush. It's tough. And I did this with a bum knee.

    The point isn't that I'm a tough guy. It's that I had a goal, and I did the work necessary to get to the goal. You don't got to be that smart, you just have to have a purpose and something to strive for.
     
  50. Murgilod

    Murgilod

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2013
    Posts:
    10,083
    You do realise that everything you're saying here is literally challenged by centuries of research into economics, right?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.