Video Games Are Destroying the People Who Make Them

[Berkut]

There is no such exclusion that exists.

There definitely is - at least in British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/factsheets/high-technology-companies

The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to "high technology professionals".

Not sure about other jurisdictions, of course.

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

[crazy canuck]

There is no such exclusion that exists.

There definitely is - at least in British Columbia: https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/employment-business/employment-standards-advice/employment-standards/factsheets/high-technology-companies

The hours of work provisions of the Act, including those governing meal breaks, split shifts, minimum daily pay and hours free from work each week, as well as the overtime and statutory holiday provisions, do not apply to "high technology professionals".

Not sure about other jurisdictions, of course.

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

I am not sure what you are talking about now.  I pointed out that the issue was whether employees in the gaming industry should be treated like other exempt employees.  You claimed there was no such exemption.  You are wrong about the US - assuming Grumbler is right about the legislative exemption he referred to.

[Berkut]

You are totally changing the argument from the claim that game developers have some special problem that needs to be fixed, to the much more general problem that salaried employees in general are not paid overtime.

I am genuinely confused by why you think that.  My whole argument is that excluding all employees who work in the gaming industry from the legal protections most other employees enjoy should be reconsidered.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

There is no such exclusion that exists.

[Jacob]

My perspective (so insert a liberal amount of "IMO" and "from what I've seen" throughout):

Ease of transition to non-game work

First off, keep in mind that a significant number of people who make videogames are not programmers. There are also production staff (project managers, producers), quality assurance, artists of various sorts (animators, modelers, compositors, effects artist, writers, concept artists - often highly specialized), designers (gameplay scripters, level designers). It depends on the project of course, but when we talk about he people making games only roughly half of them are programmers.

How easily can these people get work outside of games, should they desire it?

Production Staff - in theory project management is the same across industries, but in practice there are usually enough specialized elements in the process that it is non-trivial. We don't hire in a lot of PM type people from other industries, and conversely game management experience isn't particularly valued in other industries. This is even more true once you get into producing rather than pure project management. I'd rate the shifting career option here as theoretically possible, but definitely non-trivial. I expect you'd need to set it as a deliberate goal, pick a destination, work on certs. and industry specific networking and then deliberately jump.

Artists - most of them are locked into the game industry hard. There is some potential movement to adjacent industries (related to films and TV mostly), but those are managed similarly so it isn't really relevant if we're talking about moving to improve working conditions. In most cases the skills are quite specialized - related to very specific software and very small segments of the game production pipeline. There are a few exceptions, but the vast majority of artists (and they make up equal numbers to engineers), have nowhere else to go where they wouldn't be starting over from basically scratch.

Designers - they have even less options than the artists. Unless they luck out and manage to catch a wave of "gamification" being popular in some other industry, there's nowhere else for them. Some are technical, but experienced lua scripters (f.ex.) are not in demand anywhere else no matter how much you argue it's pretty much the same as programming.

QA - pretty much like the production staff. In theory there are cross field applications, but in practice it seems training up a talented beginner is more attractive than bringing in someone experienced in from another industry (and this goes in both directions).

Programmers (sometimes called engineers, but most of them are not in fact engineers) - they're in the best position to move out of games of these groups, but it's still varied. High end programmers in math heavy fields - like graphics or physics - seem to have no problem in moving on.HOwever, since people tend to specialize, there are still a  large group of programmers whose skills are less transferable. The demand for game play programmers, animation engineers, and UI programmers (in the numbers that exist in games), audio programmers etc, is somewhat limited compared to demand. There's the additional fact that video game programmers are not always held in that high regard due to the very different development processes in place in games compared to industry. Still, I think most programmers would probably land okay after spamming resumes for a while.

[Jacob]

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

[Berkut]

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

[mongers]

Languish - 'No empathy left behind'

[crazy canuck]

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

Mainly used that way these days, but back in the day other high tech firms lobbied for the exemption.  Its just that, in BC, the gaming industry has become a dominant entity in the sector.

[Jacob]

... continuing my perspective.

People in the game industry put up with OT because they love what they do

It is definitely true that most people who start in the game industry love games and are excited to work on games. It is also true that they put up with all kinds of shit because they love games, though usually it's mostly because they're told "that's the way it is."

It is also true that companies ruthlessly and explicitly promote and exploit that. The message that it's reasonable to put up with shit because it's games and "we love making games" is relentless - "we're so lucky to be doing what we love! Have a branded t-shirt and some free beer! Mandatory 60-hour weeks are still in effect this month!"

Many of the larger companies work on a model deliberately designed to bring in large volumes of staff and relentlessly grinding them with OT and discarding them when they break from the stress and/ or the project no longer needs them (and with little thought towards staff retention between projects). Not all companies do that, of course, but plenty do - and even the ones who don't do it as a deliberate strategy often do so less deliberately due to general industry factors.

[Jacob]

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

It wouldn't be the first time a law designed to achieve something was expressed in more general terms.

It is my understanding that the law was designed for and is primarily used by the games industry. But for sake of argument, let's say that it is broadly used in the high-tech sector across BC, how do the arguments change?

I reckon the "they do it for the love, so it's okay" thing falls flat, but other than that does it change anything about the degree to which the gov't should opr should not regulate or whether or not an explicit exemption is good policy - whether it applies to and/ or is used by "games" or "high tech"?

[Berkut]

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

It wouldn't be the first time a law designed to achieve something was expressed in more general terms.

It is my understanding that the law was designed for and is primarily used by the games industry. But for sake of argument, let's say that it is broadly used in the high-tech sector across BC, how do the arguments change?

I reckon the "they do it for the love, so it's okay" thing falls flat, but other than that does it change anything about the degree to which the gov't should opr should not regulate or whether or not an explicit exemption is good policy - whether it applies to and/ or is used by "games" or "high tech"?

Go back and see my arguments previously.

If there are industries where the ability to force people to work long hours where they lack the ability to counter that pressure, then it might make for a good argument for intervention. And in fact, I think that broadly that is the case.

This is just a singularly terrible example to use. Software designers have a very marketable, valuable, and nighly transferable skill set that allows them to move to other companies or even other genres within the industry if they so choose.

I think using them as the "example" of poor, oppressed workers being taken advantage of betrays that this isn't really about any rational argument based on practical reality at all, but rather the generic, left wing, business is bad no matter what, and the workers are always oppressed by The Man.

Which I find frustrating, because it is a path that never has an end to it. If your argument is that people being paid almost 6 figures on average are the example case of those who need protection, then it seems clear to me that there is no possible set of workers who will not be *always* eligible for more intervention on their behalf.

If this argument was a general one observing that salaried workers generally are being taken advantage of in the US because of the exemption made for them not being required to be paid OT, then I am right with you. I think that is bad policy for a variety of reasons. But software engineers being the case study for salaried professionals not being able to leave their job if they don't like it? That is just ludicrous.

[crazy canuck]

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

Berkut, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.  The exemption includes employees in the gaming industry.  The question is whether or not it should.  Are you making a substantive point or is this just a game of silly semantics.

[Oexmelin]

So, if a work regimen implemented as company policy, leads to health issues, or free labor, it should be if no concern if a) the pay is high enough, and b) employees are deemed capable of easily finding employment elsewhere?

[Berkut]

His claim was that this exclusion was specific to the gaming industry.

Even though the language suggests otherwise, it is in fact specific to the gaming industry in the case of BC - it was brought in on behest of the gaming industry and is pretty much only used by the gaming industry (and adjacent FX and animation industries).

A, so specific to the gaming industry, except for the other industries that are not gaming that it applies to?

Gotcha.

Berkut, I still have no idea what point you are trying to make.  The exemption includes employees in the gaming industry.  The question is whether or not it should.  Are you making a substantive point or is this just a game of silly semantics.

It's not semantics at all. You claimed there was a US exemption for people in the video game industry. There is no such thing.

There is an exemption for people who are salaried, which I imagine many people in the video game industry are, but probably many are not.

Hence the entire argument stands or falls on facts or points that have nothing to do with the video game industry in particular, but rather with people who are salaried, and hence exempt.

So no, it is not just an argument about semantics, it is a rejection of a specific claim made by you over and over again even after it has been shown to be factually untrue. I guess rather than just admitting you were wrong and adjusting your argument you can claim it is "just semantics" instead. If that makes you feel better somehow.

[Berkut]

So, if a work regimen implemented as company policy, leads to health issues, or free labor, it should be if no concern if a) the pay is high enough, and b) employees are deemed capable of easily finding employment elsewhere?

The argument for government intervention is not strong if you can show that the people involved are quite capable of resolving the situation themselves, or that the market is working as intended to redress the issues.

Also, when you bandy about things like "health issues", your argument looks emotive and weak. That can mean anything. Any job can result in "health issues". Stress is common, for example, in a variety of jobs, which leads directly to higher blood pressure, ulcers, heart disease, etc., even when those jobs are regulated.

So the existence of "health issues" does not by itself make an argument for intervention - all jobs can lead to "health issues".

Of course, if you favor intervention as a political ideology, you will find ANY piece of data to justify more nanny state.