Take-Two: 95 million copies of GTA V sold

I have yet to try the new gen version.

Winckle wrote:
Saint of Killers wrote:Very little would be my guess. The people doing the core work probably get scraps from the top table by way of bonus pay if a game does well.

That's what happens when you don't control the means of production.

It's also what happens when you sign a contract and accept the terms of said contract.

Or does the "they knew what they were signing up for" line only work for people getting their limbs blown off?

Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Winckle wrote:
Saint of Killers wrote:Very little would be my guess. The people doing the core work probably get scraps from the top table by way of bonus pay if a game does well.

That's what happens when you don't control the means of production.

It's also what happens when you sign a contract and accept the terms of said contract.

Or does the "they knew what they were signing up for" line only work for people getting their limbs blown off?

Given how big a fan of GTA you are it's an odd stance to take that the people who make the game don't deserve more of a reward when it's a monster hit.

Captain Kinopio wrote:
Somebody Else's Problem wrote:
Winckle wrote:
Saint of Killers wrote:Very little would be my guess. The people doing the core work probably get scraps from the top table by way of bonus pay if a game does well.

That's what happens when you don't control the means of production.

It's also what happens when you sign a contract and accept the terms of said contract.

Or does the "they knew what they were signing up for" line only work for people getting their limbs blown off?

Given how big a fan of GTA you are it's an odd stance to take that the people who make the game don't deserve more of a reward when it's a monster hit.

I'd rather the money be put back into making more games.

I think games developers should be treated worse and paid less, because I want more money to go into Red Dead Redemption 2.

When more money goes into Red Dead Redemption 2, the people making are the people being paid to create it, so it seems to me that you are, infact, both in agreement.

I freely admit that I have no understanding of how economics works, but it also seems to me that those who work on the game who don't think they're paid enough are perfectly entitled to go start their own game studio, with blackjack and hookers. But they don't, because they agree to work for a guaranteed wage that gets paid whether or not the game makes money.

Because every games developer who feels like they're getting a raw deal has the money to find their own start up studio.

More money going into future games does not guarantee better pay for the majority of staff. Marketing budgets, PR firms, and junkets for journos will be the areas that will directly generate the most additional income, so it's natural to assume that's where any additional expenditure would be weighted by R*.

If you're not paid enough, you go elsewhere. That's how the system works. You take the risk, you reap the rewards. You don't take the risk, you get paid to sit in a cubicle and miss out when the bigger rewards come around. If your skills are the ones making the money, then it shouldn't matter where you ply your trade. (see: Activision founding)

One would assume that the devs have done the maths and figured out that all those marketing budgets, PR firms and junkets for journos means that they're making more than they would be otherwise. The continued success of Rockstar does not suggest they're suffering any kind of talent drain, so they must be paying at least reasonably well.

I thought it was pretty widely acknowledged that employment practices and standards are pretty shitty across a lot of the games industry, though. So simply going elsewhere doesn't solve the problem, unless people decide to leave the industry altogether. I'm sure there are some studios that treat their employees fairly, and that there's great demand to work there, but in the meantime, there's a huge number of people working to make the games we all play, being paid pittance, and forced to work under horrible numbers of hours. It's not that these people are missing out because they aren't willing to take a risk. Most cannot afford to found their own ethical studio. The industry probably couldn't sustain that many breakaway studios, either. Indie games have been a promising sign of people doing away with the traditional studio and publisher controls, but they'll never put out the big AAA titles that people still demand.

There's a massive power imbalance in the industry, between the studios and publishers with the money, and the people who work to make these games, because it's an industry they want to work in, because they want to make games. So long as low wages and long hours, and minimal or non existent bonuses, remain a norm in the industry, that power balance is maintained, and the people doing the actual work have little choice about where to work. They have the choice to put up or shut up, and if they threaten to leave, there are plenty of people fresh to the industry, willing to work for peanuts, waiting to take their place, because they're younger and not having to support a family, and they take gooseberry fool working conditions for granted.

What you're describing is a "buyer's market", an excess of supply in relation to demand. It's hardly a phenomon confined to the game industry (though the shrinking of the AAA end of the market has certainly contributed to it)

I've heard horror stories about studios, but Rockstar is not among their number (unless you want to factor in the now defunct Team Bondi).

TheTurnipKing wrote:What you're describing is a "buyer's market", an excess of supply in relation to demand. It's hardly a phenomon confined to the game industry

That makes this OK.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/ ... e-software

“There is a survey question – in the DSS IGDA survey 2014 – that asks respondents to agree or disagree with the statement, ‘Crunch is a necessary part of game development’,” says Legault. “If we look at the responses to that question for people who identified as students and people who did not, we see a quite striking difference. The majority of non-students (55%) disagreed or strongly disagreed to the statement that crunch is necessary. Among student respondents, 26% agreed or strongly agreed that crunch is necessary. Only 38% disagreed or strongly disagreed and over a third (36%) could neither agree nor disagree. There is a higher level of initial acceptance to the notion of crunch.

“Arguably this is what the industry relies upon – the ability to continually take on young and willing new entrants, and to replace those who burn out or otherwise leave for something else. It is fair to say that students and young new entrants to the industry do see crunch and unpaid overtime as price of admission – as ‘the way it is in games’.”

The researchers also point out that, over the 10 years the IGDA has surveyed the industry, the mean age of workers has not changed. Essentially, the maturation of the industry is stunted. Often, pressure to revise labour policy is brought by those with families and health issues. With the industry remaining overwhelmingly young and single, pressure from that quarter never materialises. And, with new workers accepting crunch as a matter of course, there is a risk that it never will.

“I was a quality assurance tester at Rockstar, and at its worst, we worked 72 hours a week. I was one of the unlucky ones to be working the night shifts. That’s 8pm-8am, six days a week, testing Grand Theft Auto. It was horrendous. I didn’t see daylight for months. This was perceived as a requirement and if you had issues with it, you were told ‘Well, you can go stack shelves at Tesco instead or answer phones at a call centre’. You were treated as disposable.”

The industry insidiously aligns crunch with passion. It’s a message that is readily apparent in any number of job postings or recruitment videos: if you love games you need to put in the hours. But this combination of passion and expectation can create intolerable pressure. “It’s absurd. It burns out our most passionate workers,” says Tanya Short, head of Kitfox Games. “It makes them believe in the martyr syndrome and pushes out all of those voices that literally cannot afford to give away their personal lives.”

So while statistics show improvements to the crunch culture, young fanatics keen to prove their passion can easily slip into destructive modes of working. As another ex-Turbine employee told us, crunch comes with its own macho myths: “There are seasoned veterans out there trying to make this a real career, not just that thing they did for a year when they were 20 and ate ramen, and ‘omg do you remember that gross couch at the office we used to pass out on’? But as game devs, I think we still sort of perversely like this maverick sensibility around our jobs that makes us sort of figures of martyrdom in the name of art. There’s this smug, holier-than-thou attitude sometimes.”

It doesn't matter how much of a "buyer's market" it is, labour exploitation is rife, and sold under the guise of passion. The crunch talked about in the article, although slowly decreasing over the last decade, is a practice that shouldn't be acceptable in any industry.

By all means, suggest a better alternative.

Employers pay people for overtime, and set reasonable working hours.

Radical, I know.

Knoyleo wrote:Employers pay people for overtime, and set reasonable working hours.

Radical, I know.

That's basically communism.

7256930752

Knoyleo wrote:Employers pay people for overtime, and set reasonable working hours.

Radical, I know.

That might happen if the price of games were to increase but seeing as the they are cheaper now than they were 20 years ago, it's highly unlikely.

Are employees only entitled to payment for the work they do when unit prices exceed a certain level?

7256930752

Knoyleo wrote:Are employees only entitled to payment for the work they do when unit prices exceed a certain level?

Employees are entitled to whatever the terms and conditions of their contract are. The working conditions of the industry are well documented at this point, nobody is forced to work in the games industry.

I use to go to a bunch of programming meet ups and every one I meet who had any experience working in the games industry told me, in no uncertain terms, that it was terrible and underpaid work. None of them working in the gaming industry any more. Most seemed to work for some kind of investment bank, although a number of people were freelance. They also seemed to think that the majority of crunch is caused by inexperienced teams not planning enough.

Hime wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:Employers pay people for overtime, and set reasonable working hours.

Radical, I know.

That might happen if the price of games were to increase but seeing as the they are cheaper now than they were 20 years ago, it's highly unlikely.

Hime wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:Are employees only entitled to payment for the work they do when unit prices exceed a certain level?

Employees are entitled to whatever the terms and conditions of their contract are. The working conditions of the industry are well documented at this point, nobody is forced to work in the games industry.

So, are bad pay and working conditions the result of an industry so on the brink it's incapable of generating enough revenue to pay it's staff, or employers exploiting the fact that these conditions are industry standard and potential employees don't have any choice in the matter?

Nobody is forced to work in the games industry, but you must accept that people still do, and I doubt many have made that choice because of their love for not being paid for their overtime. Most improvements in working conditions in any industry are brought about by people who joined it in spite of those conditions. To say they knew what they were signing up for is not a valid argument for continuing to treat people in an unfair way.

7256930752

Knoyleo wrote:
Hime wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:Employers pay people for overtime, and set reasonable working hours.

Radical, I know.

That might happen if the price of games were to increase but seeing as the they are cheaper now than they were 20 years ago, it's highly unlikely.

Hime wrote:
Knoyleo wrote:Are employees only entitled to payment for the work they do when unit prices exceed a certain level?

Employees are entitled to whatever the terms and conditions of their contract are. The working conditions of the industry are well documented at this point, nobody is forced to work in the games industry.

So, are bad pay and working conditions the result of an industry so on the brink it's incapable of generating enough revenue to pay it's staff, or employers exploiting the fact that these conditions are industry standard and potential employees don't have any choice in the matter?

Nobody is forced to work in the games industry, but you must accept that people still do, and I doubt many have made that choice because of their love for not being paid for their overtime. Most improvements in working conditions in any industry are brought about by people who joined it in spite of those conditions. To say they knew what they were signing up for is not a valid argument for continuing to treat people in an unfair way.

I'm not saying I agree with any of it but like in any industry, the wages are dictated by the market and employment law.

How would you chance working standards? Who would regulate the industry? Would you accept that unit price of games would increase and the risks that this brings to the industry?

Take-Two: 95 million copies of GTA V sold

Who is online

Affiliates