RANDOM VIDEO GAME NEWS THREAD!

[Nepenthe]

I think it also depends heavily on job security laws and unions. If you have neither then it's really hard to stand up for your rights.

But with a fear of being blacklisted by every publisher I don't see anyone within the industry standing up for an union, mostly people who get fed up and leave.

 

Probably the closest thing the industry will get to a union is the actual company employees banding together to do stuff.

Yeah, kind of like Infinity Ward.

[Calax]

I think it also depends heavily on job security laws and unions. If you have neither then it's really hard to stand up for your rights.

But with a fear of being blacklisted by every publisher I don't see anyone within the industry standing up for an union, mostly people who get fed up and leave.

 

Probably the closest thing the industry will get to a union is the actual company employees banding together to do stuff.

Yeah, kind of like Infinity Ward.

Banding together doesn't always mean that they're going to be good about "unionizing". It just means they use their power as a unit towards their own ends. IW's heads used this to do back door negotiations with a rival company while trying to sabotage their own.

[Nepenthe]

IW's heads used this to do back door negotiations with a rival company while trying to sabotage their own.

... says Activision, who made, what, billions, by sacking them?

 

Let's have some source criticism, please.

[Volourn]

"Banding together doesn't always mean that they're going to be good about "unionizing". It just means they use their power as a unit towards their own ends. IW's heads used this to do back door negotiations with a rival company while trying to sabotage their own."

 

So.. they stabtaoged them by making them tons of money? THAT'S HIALRIOUS!

[vault_overseer]

**** unions. Never seen a unioin worker that wasn't lazy and arrogant. If you don't like your job, find another one. If game industry is too tough, gtfo. That's how it works for everyone else.

[Calax]

IW's heads used this to do back door negotiations with a rival company while trying to sabotage their own.

... says Activision, who made, what, billions, by sacking them?

 

Let's have some source criticism, please.

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7093...nity-ward-case/

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/7111...ill-go-forward/

 

The court seems to think there's merit to the fact that EA might have been sniping.

 

 

"Banding together doesn't always mean that they're going to be good about "unionizing". It just means they use their power as a unit towards their own ends. IW's heads used this to do back door negotiations with a rival company while trying to sabotage their own."

 

So.. they stabtaoged them by making them tons of money? THAT'S HIALRIOUS!

Sometimes stuff backfires on you.

[Slowtrain]

**** unions. Never seen a unioin worker that wasn't lazy and arrogant. If you don't like your job, find another one. If game industry is too tough, gtfo. That's how it works for everyone else.

 

 

Unions are a neccessary evil. They've made the working world a lot better for a lot of people over the years.

[Calax]

**** unions. Never seen a unioin worker that wasn't lazy and arrogant. If you don't like your job, find another one. If game industry is too tough, gtfo. That's how it works for everyone else.

 

 

Unions are a neccessary evil. They've made the working world a lot better for a lot of people over the years.

Unions are a balancing act really. The teachers union in Cali was so horrifically powerful that they could fight over the number of minutes required of teaching in their contracts (which led to my senior year being 4 day weeks half the time, and the other half it was 4.5 day weeks... and the teachers I talked to HATED that fact). But without proper unions, the employer is entirely free to screw over their employees (which is sort of how gamestop works. If you grump about how stupid the system is to the wrong person, you get instantly kicked because they have a stack of applications six inches thick).

[sorophx]

But without proper unions, the employer is entirely free to screw over their employees

I don't see why I would need a union to defend my rights. aren't there courts to decide who's right and who's wrong? you don't like how you're being trated, you just have to point out what laws your employer is breaking, right?

[Calax]

But without proper unions, the employer is entirely free to screw over their employees

I don't see why I would need a union to defend my rights. aren't there courts to decide who's right and who's wrong? you don't like how you're being trated, you just have to point out what laws your employer is breaking, right?

Well, it gets into what you can and can't be fired for etc. Also there's benefits, retirement, hours, and such that need to be protected against removal/predication by the companies.

 

For example, without a union it's quite possible that you could be fired because your employer found a person who might not be as competant as you, but will work 60 hrs to your 40 hrs a week for as much or less pay, so they fire you for something simple and nebulous which gets them around the law, and hire the other guy.

[Hurlshort]

But without proper unions, the employer is entirely free to screw over their employees

I don't see why I would need a union to defend my rights. aren't there courts to decide who's right and who's wrong? you don't like how you're being trated, you just have to point out what laws your employer is breaking, right?

 

Courts don't decide right and wrong, they decide what is legal. While the government will protect you from flagrant offenses, they aren't going to get involved in every minor issue. They only need to make sure you get a minimum liveable wage and aren't discriminated against.

 

For example, teacher's unions, while far from perfect, are extremely necessary. Education is not an industry that has clear profit and gains. An inexperienced young teacher makes considerably less than a veteran teacher. School districts have no real reason to pay veteran teachers, they don't necessarily bring in more money to the school. So a Union is the only protection that they have.

 

Unions tend to be born out of necessity, so if the video game industry continues down this path, I wouldn't be surprised to see it happen.

[Slowtrain]

But without proper unions, the employer is entirely free to screw over their employees

I don't see why I would need a union to defend my rights. aren't there courts to decide who's right and who's wrong? you don't like how you're being trated, you just have to point out what laws your employer is breaking, right?

 

 

Ideally, unions give individuals a collective voice to negotiate with individuals who wield considerably more power and authority.

 

Unions do bring their own problems with them, but in a world where altruism generally takes a back seat to greed, Unions are very valuable to people who lack individual power when confronting those that have a lot of it.

 

In the US, other than the lucky few who come from a long line of steel magnates or oil barons, everyone has benefited from what unions have done over the last 100 years or so.

[Nepenthe]

The court seems to think there's merit to the fact that EA might have been sniping.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier.

 

Also a laughably idealistic views about how courts work. Litigation takes time and money, something your employer is generally going to have more available than you. Even I (as a lawyer) belong to a union just so that I can offload any potential cases to the union lawyers instead of struggling with them myself. We don't even have any kind of collective bargaining (for lawyers), so that's essentially the only benefit I get. Well, apart from the credit card with the pretty picture nobody else can get - used to work really well on barmaids, too...

[Calax]

The court seems to think there's merit to the fact that EA might have been sniping.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier.

So I mis-spoke slightly, but there is still enough evidence for the entire thing to move forward, which is more than most are willing to admit. Either way, it still is a point that that's what a union could do (the IW manipulation) within a company, even if they're just trying to prevent things like Team Bondi.

 

 

Also, Eve onlines insanity (including that rioting in the main trade hub) got a bit more rediculous. One of the devs behind it came out and said "stuff is so expensive because it's brand name! We'll introduce non-brand name stuff later on at lower price points."

Edited June 27, 2011 by Calax

[Nepenthe]

The court seems to think there's merit to the fact that EA might have been sniping.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier.

So I mis-spoke slightly, but there is still enough evidence for the entire thing to move forward, which is more than most are willing to admit. Either way, it still is a point that that's what a union could do (the IW manipulation) within a company, even if they're just trying to prevent things like Team Bondi.

The difference between a company trying to hire key staff from another company, and said staff sabotaging their current/previous company, is more than slight. As in, the first is both legally and morally acceptable, the latter is not.

[Malcador]

Also, Eve onlines insanity (including that rioting in the main trade hub) got a bit more rediculous. One of the devs behind it came out and said "stuff is so expensive because it's brand name! We'll introduce non-brand name stuff later on at lower price points."

 

 

No one's really pissed off about the price of the vanity items. It's about non-vanity items ever ever showing up on the Noble Exchange (the microtransaction market). Right now they're flying all the CSMs to Iceland for a meeting on this and other stuff like communication with the CSM etc. Pretty interesting weekend, people are overly livid and need to calm down a tonne, heh.

[sorophx]

my vision of unions comes from that old movie, Blue Collar

[Calax]

The court seems to think there's merit to the fact that EA might have been sniping.

Just because the claims aren't apparently baseless without a trial, don't make it so. Also, EA sniping =/= what you said earlier.

So I mis-spoke slightly, but there is still enough evidence for the entire thing to move forward, which is more than most are willing to admit. Either way, it still is a point that that's what a union could do (the IW manipulation) within a company, even if they're just trying to prevent things like Team Bondi.

The difference between a company trying to hire key staff from another company, and said staff sabotaging their current/previous company, is more than slight. As in, the first is both legally and morally acceptable, the latter is not.

Except that from what I remember, the guys at IW had another year or two on their contract with Acti. And both the guys at IW and the guys at EA had known this but were continuing to move foreward with the planned company jump. I'm pretty sure breaching a legally binding contract is NOT "legally and morally acceptable", nor is encouraging/facilitating said breach in a situation that benefits you.

[trulez]

I think it also depends heavily on job security laws and unions. If you have neither then it's really hard to stand up for your rights.

But with a fear of being blacklisted by every publisher I don't see anyone within the industry standing up for an union, mostly people who get fed up and leave.

What ? I don't understand what you mean.

 

If the poorly treated developers want justice they would organize and form a union. When the union has enough developers in it, they can and will achieve better working conditions. You can't blacklist the whole union.

 

Now the only thing working against this is laws that govern individuals rights against illegal contract termniation i.e. job security. If the local law does not provide protection from being fired illegaly (term defined by each society by their norms) then you truely are ****ed.

[Nepenthe]

Except that from what I remember, the guys at IW had another year or two on their contract with Acti. And both the guys at IW and the guys at EA had known this but were continuing to move foreward with the planned company jump. I'm pretty sure breaching a legally binding contract is NOT "legally and morally acceptable", nor is encouraging/facilitating said breach in a situation that benefits you.

Yep, planning to breach a contract intentionally to profit from it is definitely not legal. But now we are again at another aspect of the case.

[Oner]

my vision of unions comes from that old movie, Blue Collar

Your vision is unionised.

[Calax]

Except that from what I remember, the guys at IW had another year or two on their contract with Acti. And both the guys at IW and the guys at EA had known this but were continuing to move foreward with the planned company jump. I'm pretty sure breaching a legally binding contract is NOT "legally and morally acceptable", nor is encouraging/facilitating said breach in a situation that benefits you.

Yep, planning to breach a contract intentionally to profit from it is definitely not legal. But now we are again at another aspect of the case.

It all ties back to the whole union thing. West and Zamp wanted out, and were working towards that end when they got fired, and their employee's left out of loyalty. Since the employees left, west and zamp updated their lawsuit to include the bonuses to the employees that would have been paid had they stuck around.

 

Basically them acting almost like a union has allowed EA to head hunt half the dev team from under Activision, and allowed West and Zamp to drastically increase what they may or may not have been owed.

 

Also

 

http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-defe...ent-video-games

 

Californias law about mature video games is now dead as a doornail.

Edited June 27, 2011 by Calax

[Nightshape]

Except that from what I remember, the guys at IW had another year or two on their contract with Acti. And both the guys at IW and the guys at EA had known this but were continuing to move foreward with the planned company jump. I'm pretty sure breaching a legally binding contract is NOT "legally and morally acceptable", nor is encouraging/facilitating said breach in a situation that benefits you.

Yep, planning to breach a contract intentionally to profit from it is definitely not legal. But now we are again at another aspect of the case.

It all ties back to the whole union thing. West and Zamp wanted out, and were working towards that end when they got fired, and their employee's left out of loyalty. Since the employees left, west and zamp updated their lawsuit to include the bonuses to the employees that would have been paid had they stuck around.

 

Basically them acting almost like a union has allowed EA to head hunt half the dev team from under Activision, and allowed West and Zamp to drastically increase what they may or may not have been owed.

 

Also

 

http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-defe...ent-video-games

 

Californias law about mature video games is now dead as a doornail.

 

EA hasn't headhunted anyone.

[Nepenthe]

It all ties back to the whole union thing. West and Zamp wanted out, and were working towards that end when they got fired, and their employee's left out of loyalty. Since the employees left, west and zamp updated their lawsuit to include the bonuses to the employees that would have been paid had they stuck around.

 

Basically them acting almost like a union has allowed EA to head hunt half the dev team from under Activision, and allowed West and Zamp to drastically increase what they may or may not have been owed.

I haven't seen anyone involved in the case even claim any of the things you mention here, never mind prove them.

 

Personally, the most convincing argument I have still heard is that Acti wanted out of the deal that would have given Westpella the right to decide what games they make (ie. not be a cash cow for Acti), and spent enough resources on it to conjure enough material for them to spin as something sinister. Since, if the MoU exists, Westpella would have had no reason to split Acti, they already would've had the power they have now at EA.

[Calax]

It all ties back to the whole union thing. West and Zamp wanted out, and were working towards that end when they got fired, and their employee's left out of loyalty. Since the employees left, west and zamp updated their lawsuit to include the bonuses to the employees that would have been paid had they stuck around.

 

Basically them acting almost like a union has allowed EA to head hunt half the dev team from under Activision, and allowed West and Zamp to drastically increase what they may or may not have been owed.

I haven't seen anyone involved in the case even claim any of the things you mention here, never mind prove them.

 

Personally, the most convincing argument I have still heard is that Acti wanted out of the deal that would have given Westpella the right to decide what games they make (ie. not be a cash cow for Acti), and spent enough resources on it to conjure enough material for them to spin as something sinister. Since, if the MoU exists, Westpella would have had no reason to split Acti, they already would've had the power they have now at EA.

 

They wanted out, they were talking to the CEO of the competing company well before their contract was up for re-negotiation discussing the possibility of setting up IW under EA rather than under Acti. If the MoU exists, neither party has any real reason to do what they've been alleged to have done.

 

Their legal complaint specifically mentions that they're seeking the bonus money that's not just for them, but the employees that they had (most of which have followed). Acti's counter suit says that IW basically were holding MW2 as a hostage for whatever they wanted (not doing work on it without extra money etc), and as a point of evidence that's been released to show that IW wasn't following through, the fact that Acti's logo (you know, the one at the start of all games for the publisher) was not in the game as it was required to be.